User talk:NKM1974

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Chicago 2016 Olympic bid do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ccwaters (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American and British English pronunciation differences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, NKM1974. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Nardog (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating phonetics sources and use of edit summary

Hello NKM1974. Regarding this change at Simone de Beauvoir and dozens of similar recent changes, can you please try and find some wording for the edit summary that you feel correctly expresses your intent, wwithout using the words, "Sources for phonetics revised for conciseness"?

To me, this implies that the decisive factor in your change was the desire to use fewer characters in the wikicode, rather than, say, a desire for accuracy, or in order to to support verifiability. Either of the last two would be a reason that is in line with Wikipedia policy, whereas the former is not. That is why I reverted you at Simone de Beauvoir, because it looked like you thought that the use of fewer characters was a justification for the change, but it isn't: that's merely an artefact of whether a shorter template exists for one IPA source, rather than another, and since templates are written by Wikipedia editors, we cannot have the choice of which dictionary to use as a reference be based on what templates happen to exist and how long their names happen to be, because that would mean your decision on content is based on what editors are doing rather than what reliable sources are saying, which would be a violation of WP:WPINARS. Think of it this way: I could write a two-character template today pointing to a dictionary of my choice, and start changing all the articles you have already changed, and for the same reason.. Ridiculous, right? So please make changes to these articles for any reason other than the fact that the templates are longer or shorter, and try and find some wording for your summary that makes that clear. Also, I hope that you're actually checking that the sources your are using do, in fact, verify the IPA transcription, and are not just replacing them willy-nilly because the template name is shorter.

Finally, a tip: in your revert, you appear to have attempted to alert me, as well as user Nardog to your change by using the at-sign symbol before our usernames in the edit summary itself. But this won't work; use of at-sign has no effect. While the undo itself automatically notifies the editor(s) whose edit(s) you are reverting (me, in this case) via the Wikipedia notification system, use of the at-sign does not. If you wish to alert user Nardog to your edit, the way to do that is like this: [[User:Nardog]]. That will generate a blue link, like this: "User:Nardog" in the edit summary, and they will be alerted to your edit (or in this case, to this post). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I endorse NKM1974's edit in this particular case not only because the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary and Longman Pronunciation Dictionary are indeed some of the most authoritative sources on English pronunciation (see e.g. [1], an endorsement by Peter Ladefoged, the leading phonetician of the second half of the 20th century), which is precisely why we have templates for them, but also because the edit helped mitigate citation overkill. Nardog (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog:, Thanks. I don't dispute the edit, the sources, or the improvement, but rather the edit summary they chose, which, if NKM's intent matches yours, was misleading. Instead, the summary should say what you just did (or some version of it) and not imply that shorter wikicode is a valid justification for anything. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But NKM1974, just because a dictionary doesn't use IPA for its pronunciation notation doesn't at all make it any less reliable than those which use it. A dictionary's use of a non-IPA system is almost always a marketing choice and is just as scientific as an IPA notation, so long as the value of each symbol is defined in a key.

Also, your use of the term "phonetics" shows that you are not well versed in that science. Phonetics studies physical sounds used in language, or phones. The IPA notations found in dictionaries represent phonemes, which are abstract units deduced from the distribution of sounds (phones) in the given language and are associated more strongly with phonology than with phonetics (although these two fields overlap to a large extent). Whenever you are referring simply to a representation found in a dictionary or the form of pronunciation it represents, just use "pronunciation", "transcription", "notation", etc.

Also, please avoid using bare URLs to link to pages inside Wikipedia and start using wikilinks instead. Bare URLs don't work in edit summaries, and take up too much space, hurting readability. Nardog (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: Not to digress too much from the original topic, which is about edit summaries, but since you mentioned it, I didn't realize IPA uses phonemes, and at first blush, that surprised me. But it also makes sense. I'm aware that IPA can, for example, distinguish between aspirated and unaspirated T, which for English speakers are allophones, and which for Hindi speakers, are different phonemes. But it makes sense that IPA would use the same transcription for the T in top and stop, even though a Hindi speaker would hear them differently. And it also answers the question of why there are different templates for {{IPA-en}} and {{IPA-hi}}; I had assumed that IPA was phonetic and therefore universal. Makes total sense that it isn't, and has to be interpreted in the context of a particular language. So, thanks for mentioning that. Mathglot (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Glad I could help. That is such a common misconception that I felt compelled to debunk it on my user page. The IPA is by design very flexible. Also note that The IPA does not provide a phonological analysis for a particul ar language, let alone a single 'correct' transcription, but rather the resources to express any analysis so that it is widely understood (Handbook of the IPA, p. 30). Relevant article sections include International Phonetic Alphabet § Types of transcription and Phonetic transcription § Narrow versus broad transcription. Nardog (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog:, very cool. So, what does the poor field phoneticist/linguist do, faced with first contact with a people with an unknown, unwritten language? Is there an alternate transcription method that is more phonetics-based? If you have a resource or two you could link me to at WorldCat, I've got a great urban library nearby that should have it, or can get it. Thanks again, and apologies to NKM for hijacking your User page a bit here, but hoping you're finding this as interesting and enjoyable as I am. Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: As explained in the Handbook, pp. 28–30, a transcription using the IPA can range from completely "impressionistic" to completely phonemic. The vast majority of transcriptions fall somewhere in the middle (e.g. the pronouncing dictionaries mentioned above, whose transcriptions are mostly phonemic, still include some allophonic information such as T-voicing so as to help the user). The IPA is designed to record only linguistically relevant information, so that, to use the words of the Handbook, p. 4, the IPA does not provide symbols to indicate information such as 'spoken rapidly by a deep, hoarse, male voice'; ExtIPA and VoQS (and possibly some other improvisations) augment the IPA for recording such information. Nardog (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: As for resources, Ladefoged's A Course in Phonetics, the classic intro to the field, and Vowels and Consonants, which is written for a broader audience, are IMHO the best places to start. His writing is so articulate and lucid it is second to none. Nardog (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot, LPD & CEPD has lots of historical contents dating from the previous century, especially before the Second World War. Merrian Webster & American Heritage Dictionary, MW & AHD in short, doesn't use International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA. MW & AHD has too many inconsistencies. IvanScrooge98 does a great job on adding phonetics, but the user's post in English is coming into question. Do we need too many unnecessary sources? No. Can the information and source be short and simple? Yes. I consult LPD, CEPD, also check Collins' dictionary website & Lexico (formerly Oxford dictionaries website). I'm not an expert in phonetics, but I base everything on listening & speaking, and sometimes reading & writing. I'm not familiar with the American system, ie. phonemes & respelling that appears in American dictionaries. I read the whole Oxford Dictionary many years ago, but I still have trouble remembering obscure words. My English level is B2, ie., be able to listen & speak very well, but have problems with reading & writing. A C-Level in language proficiency must know the rules of grammar, phonetic and wrtitng. They also know literature & poetry. Nardog, I will follow & learn that pattern. Mathglot, that's alright if you hijack my page. At least, I'm learning something reading these conversations. NKM1974 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what you meant by "I base everything on listening & speaking", I certainly hope you're not altering any article at Wikipedia based on that. I'm glad you learned something from the conversation, I did, too. However, you didn't respond to my main point, which is about the edit summary. You don't have to respond, but I hope you'll consider what I said, going forward.

Also, regarding this:

Merrian Webster & American Heritage Dictionary, MW & AHD in short, doesn't use International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA

then I have to wonder if you really read what User:Nardog wrote, as they already discussed and explained this. Now, I'm not a lexicographer, and I don't want to get into the minutiae of what dictionaries contain, but when you say something like

MW & AHD has too many inconsistencies

I have to wonder what you base that on—other reliable sources that have said that they are full of inconsistencies? That would be a surprise to me. I certainly hope that this is not simply your own opinion, based on your own research, or at the very least, that you don't propose to make changes to any article here at Wikipedia, based on that belief. If your recent changes to many articles are based on that unstated belief, and using a different edit summary to paper it over, then please don't do that.

As far as your English level, it seems fine to me. You're aware that there are over 300 Wikipedias in other languages, right? Perhaps there is a Wikipedia in your native language that could use your help, as well.

Oh, by the way: thanks for the attempt at notifying me above, but you have to spell the user's name precisely, or they will not be notified, and usernames are case sensitive. That's why the links appear in red above; there is no user with that name, even though it only differs from mine by an upper-case 'G'. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too wonder what NKM1974 means by "inconsistencies". While it is true that American dictionaries tend to be more liberal about including rather prescriptive pronunciation variants than British ones, as discussed here (perma), that doesn't make the dictionaries per se any less reliable; we just have to use our common sense to sort them apart. Even CEPD and LPD include prescriptive variants too ("Sexwale" being one of them), and in fact I have found American ones to be more descriptive on some occasions—consider, for example, Merriam-Webster's approach to pronunciation (see 2nd entry)—especially given Received Pronunciation is a much more codified variety than General American (or whatever a dictionary posits as the model accent for AmE) is. Nardog (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I base everything on listening & speaking" here are examples with IPA phonetic pronunciation. Tomato with a single difference: BrE (təˈmɑːtəʊ) & AmE (təˈmeɪtəʊ). Disciplinary with a different stress: BrE (ˌdɪsɪˈplɪnərɪ) & AmE (ˈdɪsəˌplɪnɛrɪ). The letter "z" in multiple difference: BrE (zɛd) & AmE (ziː). In BrE, tomato is pronounced like far /ɑː/, disciplinary is stressed on the final syllable & z is zed. In AmE, tomato is pronounced like may /eɪ/, disciplinary is stressed on the first syllable & z is zee. Before I began revising in Wikipedia, some of these articles already have LPD & CEPD as a source. I never based it in my opinion, research nor propose to make changes to any article at Wikipedia. If there is a phonetic with a lack of source, I check to find if the source is a match & then I include if it's correct. If there's a phonetic with a lack of source that I couldn't find, I just leave it alone. "Inconsistencies" as in too many pronunciations, which word is the correct pronunciation in AmE. BrE dicitonaries has words pronounced in AmE & old historical words from the previous century. Since I watch videos made in Britain, I lookup the dictionary, not just pronunciation, but also colloquialism, idiom & slang common across the pond. NKM1974 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bare URL looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

A wikilink looks like this: Main Page (which, in wikicode, looks like this: [[Main Page]])

Please start using the latter. Nobody asked you not to use the LPD/EPD templates. Nardog (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know. I'm just trying to familiarize myself on the features of Wikipedia. NKM1974 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report of Santiago Claudio

WP:ANI#Unsourced edits by user Santiago Claudio. Feel free to comment. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just came here to inform you that I made a comment about you in the ANI thread about Santiago linked above, only to realize your comment there was made after Sundayclose had invited you there. This makes me realize some of the harsh things I said about you weren't as germane as I thought. I hope you won't take them too personally. All I want you to remember is that, on Wikipedia, nobody "owns" content and civility is a top priority. It looks like you've been focused on one article so much (which isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself) that you haven't had the chance to be acquainted with how things work on Wikipedia the way many editors of your tenure have. I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Nardog (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: No hard feelings. If I have any questions about my post, I leave a note on the Edit Summary & Santiago doesn't. The user was reported for leaving a blank on the Edit Summary & never reply to messages on the Talk section. If you check the User contribution of Santiago Claudio, the past Edit Summary is mostly blank. Also, the user replies rarely on the Talk section until recently. Reverting edit in good faith is no longer applicable to the user. I'm dominant in pronunciation differences of BrE & AmE, but I'm trying to compile a list of regional differences between Britain & the States. I never mentioned that I own the articles in Wikipedia. I will read the five pillars of Wikipedia so I can familiarize myself with the system. Even though, I'm not active most of the time. You & I have our differences. If you observed anything suspicious, you need to be vocal & report it to the authorities. NKM1974 (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I'm not saying you said you owned content. But you have behaved as though you do. Users are encouraged to be bold when editing, and they shouldn't be expected to comb through thousands of past revisions before making an edit. It's okay to revert it if you disagree with it. That's also expected as part of the BRD cycle. The D in "BRD" stands for discussion, and that's what you're expected to engage in if they stand by their edit. But be sure to comment on content, not on the contributor. What problems the other editor has had with others in the past should be of no concern to you as far as the discussion about the article is concerned. WP:BATTLEGROUND has some wise words I wish everyone took to heart. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I'm sorry that I wasn't able to reply to your message after 3 days. The reason that I focused mainly on pronunciation differences, between BrE & AmE, is because nobody found & researched words that weren't brought to this site's attention. Also, users aren't making any effort to find unknown pronunciations. There are actually more words, but I haven't done so yet due to health issues. Perhaps, you would be able to bring these materials that weren't brought to that article's attention in a short period of time. I guess you don't have time or must be busy on other matters. If I'm able to cover 90% of the information, from A through Z, I might be able to move on from this article. I check old logs because LakeKayak has removed lots of useful information & the user said: "there's no difference & it's just regional". For example, there are no pronunciation differences between route /ruːt/ & rout /raʊt/ with phonetics. Route with an "e" is a French word, eg. en route & rout without an "e" means to defeat, to dig or rummage. Then removes this section with link, 16:45, 25 March 2017, because there's no example. I checked that section & put strychnine because it's in the register of most dictionaries. I do these 3 things that users never do because it's a waste of time: read the dictionary, listen to archive audio & watch films from the previous century. If anybody deletes information, I will check to see if it's in the register. If so, I will make a note on the Edit Summary and Talk section, if necessary. I will ping back & respond to the user(s) involved in the dispute of the Talk section. When I was new here, someone said, "Do we have to make a note on the Edit Summary?" The answer is yes because users remove that information whether it's sourced or unsourced. Sometimes, I contest that removed item on the Talk section with a provided source(s). I'm not here to make friends nor alliances. I'm here to focus on the matter & resolve issues concerning that topic. I will never have a row, slag off or use a tirade of expletives towards other users. I will report the matter to the authorities, if a user had numerous citations or past warnings. I know it's wrong to pry on other user's profile, but that's the only way to eliminate bad users. NKM1974 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]