User talk:Maczkopeti

Welcome!

Hello, Maczkopeti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! User:Gap9551

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

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

Szabó

added links pointing to László Szabó, Attila Szabó, Sándor Szabó, Miklós Szabó and Zoltán Szabó

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Vujicic

Hello. Your edit to Nick Vujicic was completely wrong and was therefore reverted. Please read Help:IPA for English to see what i and u mean in English IPA. 89.72.244.110 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for what you did on Algorithm. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Algorithm does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ChamithN (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cappuccino edit

My bad. Only saw what was removed by you but didn't see that it was a duplicate. - Takeaway (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation changes

Hi Maczkopeti.

I note that you have been making unexplained changes to pronunciation text in a number of articles. Please do not make such changes without explanations in the edit summary, which I note you have been referred to before above.

Because these might be contentious I have reverted some of them. Please do not make any further such edits without first taking to the talk page on these articles. It is likely that many more of the similar edits you have done will also be contentious.

Regards.

Aoziwe (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that we can't take your word for granted. So, when making claims like "the rhotic is marked in the Oxford American dictionary", be ready to cite sources. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

PRONOUNCIATION EDIT

Hello User talk:Maczkopeti, do you think Maiorana page could do with a pronounciation [1]? I'm asking you because of your pronouciation edit to Molyneux page and think it would benefit the page, but noticed that Gallagher (surname), Goulding (surname) and Murphy (surname) don't have pronouciations, but could do with it as much as or more than Maiorana could? Let me know, thanks.--2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:41B9:8074:ACF0:96E8 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ubuntu (operating system), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Also, explain your edits using edit summaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting to use edit summaries

Thank you for beginning to use some edit summaries. Please use an edit summary for every edit to an article even brief ones. It is difficult to work out intent without a summary. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nardog (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

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

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Maczkopeti. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor

Hi, Maczkopeti. Please read Help:Minor edit § When to mark as minor changes to learn when edits should be marked as "minor" with the checkbox by the edit summary. Any additions or removals beyond obvious fixes should likely not be marked as minor. Rhinopias (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note you are still removing entire pronunciation guides yet just marking these edits as minor and giving an inadequate justification why on various articles, such as Cheshire and United Kingdom. You've been warned about these two issues before, sometimes on multiple occasions. Please don't do any like this again, or you may face unpleasant consequences. I've reverted your changes. If you feel the need to do them again, do not. Instead, abide by BRD and discuss them on the appropriate article talk pages first, and learn in future to use adequate edit summaties. Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Cheshire, It was only a simplification. For alternative pronunciations, only the altered syllable(s) should be written out. See the dictionary.com source I cited or articles like Manchester. As for United Kingdom, MOS:PRON states "[d]o not include them for common English words just because they have pronunciations that might be counterintuitive for learners (laughter, sword)." The words in the full name of the United Kingdom are all common words.

--maczkopeti (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but these explanations should be spelled out in your edit summaries. Make sure you do that for all the similar or related changes ypou make in other articles in future, please. DDStretch (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, are you being foolish here! You reinstated the change to United Kingdom but with a totally inadequate edit summary again! These edit summaries are not just for me, they are for other people, and they should be self-explanatory in themselves. Do better than this in future. DDStretch (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel pronunciation

I left a message to you at Talk:Israel#Pronunciation concerning your change of pronunciation. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nihongo

I appreciate you trying to be helpful, but moving Nihongo footnotes from the Notes section (which is specifically for footnotes) to the references section (meant for external citations) is a confusing decision. I've thus reverted those edits. It's better to leave the "efn" template and have it lead to the separate Notes subsection. Let me know if you have any questions. Bruzer Fox 17:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be edited to allow for the same grouping as {{efn}} then. Also, the usage of {{Nihongo}} on articles like Sonic Lost World is incorrect, as the kana is unformatted, and the rōmaji is formatted like the kana.

--maczkopeti (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, {{Nihongo foot}}) already has an option. I just have to add group=lower-alpha.

--maczkopeti (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested...

Thank you for fixing IPA notations. If you're interested, here's instances of IPAc-en with multiple syllables but no stress. The search might be expensive for servers and it constantly changes as edits are made, so you should probably save the results first before you edit them, should you do it. Happy editing! Nardog (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:PRON

MOS:PRON does not mean that all countries should have the pronunciation removed, only those that are "well known in English". --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ones I removed are pretty well known, although it's debatable exactly which can be considered as such.
--maczkopeti (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation help

Could you do me a favour and fix up the IPA formatting on Tsamma juice. The pronunciation comes from a Fortune source, so it should be accurate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you want to change the MOS, you really need a discussion. Especially when you're proposing that we intentionally give false information. We generally don't want to introduce errors under the assumption that the reader will know not to take us seriously. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester, Kent

Could you help me understand the ipa changes you made is -iss. I have difficulty finding anyone that sounds the final -r-, all the locals terminate it with a schwaa like in comma, not schwaa-r as in letter. (and here in the land of the glottal stop- that is an unfortunate example!). --ClemRutter (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:RHOTIC.
--maczkopeti (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of the differences between UK and American versions of English mean we should not stick unduly to rhotic pronunciations here, which are a feature more of American, rather than British, English. DDStretch (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ddstretch: Transcription system used on Help:IPA/English is diaphonemic, which means that it accomodates both variants simultaneously. What we need a consensus for is changing that, not the other way around. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB:: So, how does it accommodate both the main USA way of using a rhotic r and the way Clemrutter mentioned (where it ends with a schwa sound)? It isn't obvious to me, nor, I suspect, to many other non-specialists. Just wishing to be educated here, not wanting to be oppositional at all. DDStretch (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ddstretch: It's all about levels of abstraction. Phonemic transcriptions (those enclosed within single slashes) are already quite abstract, but diaphonemic transcriptions are even more abstract which could be shown by enclosing them within double slashes (//like this//). If you speak a rhotic accent, like those of Southwestern England, Ireland or most of the United States and Canada, then you should pronounce the final /ər/. If you speak a non-rhotic accent, final /ər/ and /ə/ are most probably the same to you. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked: Could you help me understand the ipa changes you made is -iss. I just want to know why you changed from one valid alternative to another?

I then commented on MOS:RHOTIC issues, and informed you there was possibly an error that you had missed. I still wish to know if some Wikipolicy has changed since I last edited this article-particularly on which version of RP we are attempting to document. I have been told in the past we are looking at educated southern English- but the pronunctiations given here do not always reflect the language spoken the Medway Council chamber by either officers or members. More interesting to sort out is the local pronunctiation of Chatham- ch a hint of an a ,then a long glottal stop and an m or possibly schwaa m. Chatham-Kent is missing the IPA. Then move to Maidstone that noone has attempted to IPA- the interest there is the two accepted pronunctiations. Mide stun if you approach from the north , or Made stone if you approach from the Weald.

IPA is a specialist skill-it takes me an age to write it- you are obviously fluent, so it seems reasonable to ask for clarification. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why I changed it to -iss- is simple. "is" as a word is pronounced /ɪz/, and respelling it as -iss- resolves ambiguity.

As for the rhotic, as Mr KEBAB said, the system is diaphonemic. If you do not pronounce /r/ at the end of a syllable coda, you simply ignore it.

The pronunciation of Chatham is very much covered by phoneme /əm/, which can phonetically be either [əm] or a syllabic consonant [m̩], the latter of which turns the preceding [t] to a glottal stop.

--maczkopeti (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true as the schwa in Chatham is mandatorily sounded, making any pronunciation with a glottal stop non-RP and non-GA. The sequence /təm/ is probably never realized as [tm̩ ~ ʔm̩]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a steep learning curve here. There must be a case for including the local pronunctiation here, as it is so wildly different. Would I be correct to say Chatham (/tʃæˈʔəm/ cha-əM)ClemRutter (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that the IPA system we use is phonemic and not phonetic. Going by your Maidstone example, you might hear the Northern pronunciation as "Mide stun", but phonemically it's still /ˈmeɪdstoʊn/ MAYD-stohn. Similary, if a Chatham resident would read (/ˈtʃætəm/ CHAT-əm), it would probably sound like the local pronunciation you're trying to describe.
--maczkopeti (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean /ˈtʃætəm/ ;) Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating what you say, but the good citizens of North Kent have a long and rich history of absorbing immigrants and their spelling systems. Even at is simplist, all your examples put the emphasis on the first syllable- here they put it on the second. The same goes for /meɪdˈstoʊn/ mayd-STOHN I would like to produce the killer counter example that demonstrates the locals treat similar spelling in different ways but one eludes me at the moment. Many Kent towns are missing a IPA: Frittenden (/ɛ/n/ or /ə/n/) and Chattenden (/iː/n/). Royal Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge.It will be wonderful when we get them all sorted- we can start giving Wiki-elocution lessons in our spare time. ClemRutter (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why I changed it to -iss- is simple. Thanks. Agreed. Does Help:Pronunciation respelling keynote 11. need to be clarified? ClemRutter (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The note already mentions that the s should be doubled when otherwise it may be misinterpreted as /z/.
--maczkopeti (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chester and WP:BRD

Please don't just reinstate changes people have reverted because they disagree with you. The advice given in BRD is to be followed. Otherwise, you could be seen to be initiating or condoning an edit war. If you feel you don't have time to explain why you instituted the changes (expanding on an edit subject line, which is necessarily terse), then perhaps you could try to slow down a little, to allow the full collaborative nature of wikipedia to be seen? Thanks. DDStretch (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Draheim

Thank you, Maczkopeti, for your recent edits to Sue Draheim. I must, however, take issue with your adjustment to the pronunciation of her last name. While I am aware that your "correction" reflects the correct German pronunciation, Sue Draheim did not give it the correct German pronunciation, nor did anyone else in her immediate family. She, as did others in her immediate family, pronounced it as it was originally written in the article: ˈ|d|r|ɔː|.|h|aɪ|m| (DRAW|hime). Unfortunately, I do not have evidence of this in the form of a citation, but I do know this as I am her older brother. Since this is an article about Sue Draheim in particular, and not about Draheim in general, I think it appropriate to indicate the pronunciation used by the subject. As I am reluctant to revert people's changes, I would greatly appreciate it if you would revert that change on your own. Thank you very much for your attention and your cooperation.--Akhooha (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burgh by Sands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brough (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) 09:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/-ɪzəm/

AFAIK English doesn't allow secondary stress immediately after primary stress, dictionaries who would transcribe it would do so only to show that /ɪ/ is a full vowel without a tendency to centralize. See Help:IPA/English.

Also, /ˈfæˌʃɪzəm/ and /ˈbʊˌdɪzəm/ should be /ˈfæʃˌɪzəm/ and /ˈbʊdˌɪzəm/. No checked vowels can end English syllables (at least the stressed ones), save for extremely rare circumstances such as the loanword pho /fʌ/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary stress after primary very much exists. For example, "autism" can't be transcribed as /ˈɔːtɪzəm/, since the /t/ is not reduced to [ɾ] in GA.
--maczkopeti (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can /t, d/ be flapped before an unreduced /ɪ/? I'm not sure about that. IMO this /t/ is best analyzed as being syllable-initial rather than syllable-final, so that the correct syllabification is /ˈɔː.tɪz.əm/. I haven't yet seen a convincing argument not to analyze flapped alveolars as syllable-final.

See Help:IPA/English, note #35. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the difference between reduced and unreduced /ɪ/ if not the stress? From my experience, flapping in American English doesn't depend on syllabification, like the phrase "go to bed" can be [ˌgoʊ ɾə ˈbɛd]. Even in single words, like "pluto" [pluːɾoʊ] the same flapping occurs, yet we don't transcribe it as /ˈpluːt.oʊ/.
--maczkopeti (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced /ɪ/ is unstressed by definition, yet an unreduced /ɪ/ can be either stressed or unstressed. By the way, the final vowel of Pluto, as far as I know, also counts as reduced (some would write it /ɵ/). I guess cockneys are just as likely to say [ˈplʊʉʔɐ ~ ˈplʊʉɾɐ] for Pluto as they are to say [təˈmɒɹɐ] for tomorrow.

Unstressed to (and maybe few other words) is a special case. The possible weak form [ɾə] has word-initial [ɾ], not just syllable-initial. Hardly any other English word has that feature. The same goes for t-glottaling. Further evidence that the correct analysis of most instances of [ɾ] and [ʔ] is syllable-final is the fact that word-final [ɾ ~ ʔ] would still be analyzed as belonging to the word-final syllable, no matter the nature of the preceding vowel (checked or free). Why would that differ in polysyllabic words? The same analysis applies to Danish by the way. Words like øde, gade and afgrøde are correctly syllabified [ˈøːð.ə, ˈɡæːð.ə, ˈaw.ɡʁœːð.ə], not *[ˈøː.ðə, ˈɡæː.ðə, ˈaw.ɡʁœː.ðə]

Then I'd argue that we're making a mistake by transcribing it /ˈpluː.toʊ/. We should write /ˈpluːtoʊ/ PLOOT-oh. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: Most dictionaries, even British ones, including LPD but not CEPD, ascribe post-tonic secondary stress to the penultimate syllable of -ism words, presumably because stress shift may occur (LPD does the same thing with -ory, -ery words in GA; think of the different stress positions in "(not) necessarily..." in RP and GA). Look up absolutism, egotism, astigmatism, favouritism, etc. Seems like LPD puts the stress after /t/ if flapping is possible (but note not all dictionaries take flapping into consideration in syllabification; to give an example, M-W applies the maximal onset principle rather rigorously—even after checked vowels—which is an equally defensible choice because flapping is most often predictable). Nardog (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kecskemét!

I don't usually interfere with Hungarian Wikipedia pages, but if I see something really misleading, would you mind if I got in touch? I'm afraid that even after 41 years in Hungary, I still suffer from a few spelling and word order mistakes. Cheers, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing.
--maczkopeti (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Look what you doing. What is this: [2] ?! --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted to edit the IPA. Not sure what happened.
--maczkopeti (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then use "Show changes" button before saving. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Triggerhippie4 Can you explain why you only partially reverted this accidental removal, but did not restore the wikilinks to Nakba and Palestinians that I added to the lede? Wouldn't a revert have been easier then removing content added by another editor without explanation? - Editors are responsible to check and make sure content isn't removed when things like this happen. Please be more careful in the future.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Moved to Talk:Israel § Nakba in the lead

– --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless effort of keeping tidy the pronunciations, and the lead sections as a whole, across Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Hi, could you please provide a link to somewhere where this [3] is explained? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the key to pronunciations in OED, you can see that /ʌɪ/ is listed as the vowel in "my". The same sound in our IPA system is listed as /aɪ/. /ʌ/ and /ɪ/ are checked vowels, meaning they only appear in closed syllables, meaning /ʌɪ/ (note the "|" between) is not a valid sequence in English unless a consonant is added between them. --maczkopeti (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't interfere with sourced material

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Koh-i-Noor. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. (For changing the pronunciation to what you think it should be rather than what it is according to sources.[4]) Firebrace (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no OR here, just formatting to better fit our IPA key. I already gave an explanation to a similar issue in the section above. --maczkopeti (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'common' German IPA

Hi, about a week or so ago you've removed a lot of German IPA pronunciations that are commonly known, in the English equivalent. The reason for the removal of certain English words is because they are common. Bear in mind the German pronunciation of these names are quite different than in English, so be aware about that; and for that reason I had to restore some of them, at least it's better than nothing (I'll slowly get to everything). Please let me know if you object or disagree with anything I say. — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazing JUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry if I appeared too blunt or irritated; I simply don't have the patience now. Like I said, I may fix it when I feel more awake. — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazing JUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 11:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them not because they're common in English, but because they're common in German, and there were already a lot of articles of German people where only the last names are prescribed, so I saw no reason to keep the first names on the select few articles where they're are also prescribed. --maczkopeti (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get the picture now. I'll leave that alone then. Sorry for that mishap upon you. — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazing JUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 12:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, does this mean that you are chaging articles to contain less information? Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we should remove them. I'd rather leave them alone, even though transcriptions of last names are generally more important than the IPA for the first name. Not everyone knows rules governing German pronunciation (which are rather straightforward) and not everyone who can read German can pronounce it correctly. We shouldn't require the reader to look for the IPA in other articles. If any given transcription feels too long for you, it's better to make it into a note. Just my two cents. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to get really worried about this. Maczkopeti has been going around hundreds if not thousands of articles removing useful information from them. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrVogel: The problem isn't that big. Most of his edits to English IPA are pretty much spot on, and I know that because I check them on a regular basis. This, for instance, was a perfectly legitimate removal.

When it comes to foreign names, it may be a somewhat different issue. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt his intentions, I'm just not at all sold on the idea of removing valid information from articles.

As regards the example that you're giving, one of the entries is a foreign name, so I don't really understand what you mean. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrVogel: The corresponding IPA transcription was wrong (with word-final /ɛ/ which is impossible in this position) and not truly Japanese but a mere English approximation. It should be listed on Sone (surname) and re-transcribed using the IPA-ja template and the set of symbols used on Help:IPA/Japanese. Maybe @Nardog: could transcribe it for us. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if somebody can give us the correct one, absolutely.

And once we have it, I think we can have it on both pages, but you're saying we should only have it on one.

I don't understand what the point in having articles with less information is. I'm not being funny, I genuinely don't understand how that can be a good idea. Why make pages less informative? If you could please explain your position that'd be great. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrVogel: It looks like WP:DABDIC answers this question for you. IPA is very useful but we should remember that Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary, there are healthy limits to what we should transcribe using it. See also WP:PRON. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with what WP:DABDIC says, but it's not specific enough. In the case of the sone disambiguation page, we're disambiguating by meaning, and also by sound. If you know how it's spelled, we're giving you 2 ways to find the correct article, by meaning and by sound. Surely 2 ways is better than 1?

Also I would still be very grateful if you could please explain your position about how it's constructive to remove valid information from articles. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor and for your contributions to our project, so I'm sure you have good reasons for removing valid information from articles, and I'm asking if you could please explain. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrVogel: To me IPA is typical dictionary content, but maybe I'm reading too much into this. I also don't see how useful is including the IPA in this specific case. There are two words, one English and one Japanese, which are languages that have different sound inventories and therefore also different transcriptional systems and therefore also separate guides (Help:IPA/English and Help:IPA/Japanese, they also differ in that the former uses a diaphonemic transcription and the latter a rather broad phonetic one). Many people also can't read the IPA. There's no point in including it, it isn't helpful.

I've linked to WP:PRON which does a good job at explaining the issue. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

River Mersey

Given a discussion we had a few months ago, I think this edit to River Mersey should have the single slashes replaced with double slashes, as not many British accents use a rhotic-r. What do you think? DDStretch (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RHOTIC already explains everything. The notation is diaphonemic, meaning it already accounts to most major English variants. If a speaker is non-rhotic, they can just ignore the /r/. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham

I have no idea why you would make changes to many articles, please don't remove the common pronunciation by British speakers. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were no removals, just simplifications. /ˈtɒt.ən.əm/ may alternatively be pronounced as [ˈtɒt.nəm]. See H:IPAE § Note 32. --maczkopeti (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It would be helpful to link the note in the edit summary. I'll undo them. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/u/

Are you sure that all instances of /uː/ that you changed to /u/ are indeed correctly transcribed as such? Remember that /u/ means "either /uː/ or /ʊ/" or, more accurately, "pronounced /ʊ/ by older RP speakers and /uː/ by younger RP speakers". Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed /uː/ to /u/ where it's unstressed and is followed by a vowel. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this seems to fit how Wells uses the symbol. In fact, there's hardly any instance of an unstressed prevocalic /uː/ in LPD. Thanks for the explanation. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle

I can understand why you would remove the pronunciations with 'Newcastle' on them being commonly represented. However there is actually a subtle distinction (its with the stress; first/second syllable) and that should be pointed out. — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazing JUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then I think only the local pronunciation of Newcastle upon Tyne should be kept, as it's the only one where the second syllable is stressed. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle, New South Wales

I'm guessing you're not Australian. The people in Australia's Newcastle pronounce it with the "a" sound as in "car". However, people elsewhere in Australia, particularly in my state, Victoria, pronounce the "a" sound to rhyme with the sound in "cat". There is even a Wikipedia article about it (and a few other things). Have a look at Variation in Australian English#Phonology. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be Australian to know that "new" and "castle" are both common words, and, as stated in MOS:LEADPRON, pronunciation doesn't need be noted for them. Even then, I'd doubt that the pronuncation with /ɑː/ is the only one there. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: Is there actually a difference with that vowel? Are there more examples of these? I thought castle was always pronounced with a long vowel in Australia. But then I live in New South Wales... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmazingJus (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether or not the speaker has the trap-bath split. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, the trap-bath split is at least present to some degree in Australians. I just wanted to know what words are and aren't affected in regards to variation. — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazing JUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 08:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed, but again, "castle" is a common word, so noting the pronunciation is unnecessary and even potentially misleading in this case. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Castlemaine, Victoria. There's "castle" again, but it has a pronunciation guide. It explicitly says that the "a" is pronounced as in "bad". Have you looked at that Wikipedia link - Variation in Australian English#Phonology? Sorry we Aussies are so confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there could be speakers there with the trap-bath split, so the correct transcription would be /ˈkæsəlmeɪn, ˈkɑːsəl-/, but, again, "castle" is a common word, so the difference in pronunciation should be automatic on the speakers part. --maczkopeti (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "the difference in pronunciation should be automatic on the speakers part". HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean pronouncing the word as either /ˈkæsəl/ or /ˈkɑːsəl/ depending on the speakers dialect. --maczkopeti (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I and many other Australians pronounce the word differently depending on which larger word it's part of. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: Can you give us some more examples? Castlemaine is named after William Handcock, 1st Viscount Castlemaine who had to pronounce his name /ˈkæsəlmeɪn/ KASS-əl-mayn, as Irish English doesn't have the trap-bath split. You probably just preserve the original Irish pronunciation there. That is, if the vowel really doesn't vary, which still isn't totally obvious. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle and Castlemaine are the two biggies in Australia. Can't think of any more right now. It's 7 in the morning here. Maybe as I wake up more.... HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, do even people who pronounce Newcastle with the PALM vowel pronounce Castlemaine with the TRAP vowel, and vice versa? If so it means the difference has been lexicalized, and the notations would be pretty relevant. Nardog (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce Newcastle with the PALM vowel pronounce Castlemaine with the TRAP vowel, because that's what the locals do in each place, and I regard it as polite to do the same. I know many other Australians do what I do. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: But you may be unique in that aspect. Normally, speakers adopt city names to their own phonological systems. An American would probably never say /ˈn(j)uːkɑːsəl/, only /ˈn(j)uːkæsəl/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's HiLo48 or Maczkopeti/Kbb2 who is/are right, a reliable source is needed. But at the same time, if the split or lack thereof is so robust in a particular place that almost every local pronounces its name in one way, then I don't think a transcription of the "local pronunciation" in the lead wouldn't hurt, especially in a place like Australia where the split is so disperse. Nardog (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say again, the key to this is explained in Variation in Australian English#Phonology. Castlemaine, Victoria has a pronunciation guide. Newcastle, NSW needs one too, for the same reason. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury

This seems to be a common occurrence but your edits on the pronunciation of Salisbury have not been helpful. The original edit, which, not that it matters, was not by me, accurately deals with several pronunciations, and was skilfully edited so that it did not detract from the opening sentence. What there were not were any mistakes. Your edit removed this good edit and left us with a single representation of one pronunciation, which was already there anyway, and was indeed a bit better than yours. At the very least, having UKRP, AE and local seems right, and each has its own way of pronouncing 'bury' ('buhry, 'berry, 'bree). You have not corrected errors but rather removed options and got it slightly wrong. I am not criticising your knowledge of phonetics but I don't think it's right to change a good edit for no good reason, particularly when it comes to place names, the accurate representations of which would require you to be a local, native speaker. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given explanation to a similar case in #Tottenham above. /ˈsɔːlz.bər.i/ may alternatively be pronounced as [ˈsɔːlz.bri], so there's no need to transcribe it separately as /ˈsɔːlz.bə.ri, -bri/ or /ˈsɔːlz.b(ə)ri/. See H:IPAE § Note 32. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the original edit was not wrong and included sourced pronunciations which yours did not. It's a question of whether one's edits improve an article: one way to do so is to correct errors. Your edit neither improved the article nor corrected errors. It actually removed sourced, helpful information. I appreciate that you have engaged on your talk page and have no doubt that you're editing in good faith but I would ask that you leave the Salisbury page's section on its pronunciation as it is, as it is an accurate, sourced edit which is free of error. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any sources. In fact, /ˈsɒlzbri/ and /ˈsɔːzbri/ was not in the source cited (I did find the former in an other dictionary). --maczkopeti (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You took out a couple of sourced options which were not incorrect. Anyway, as I said, I appreciate that you have had the discussion and the wider point, that of correcting errors and leaving edits which are not objectively incorrect, remains. Thanks for leaving it- appreciated. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not remove any sourced material or any of the sources. The aforementioned two pronunciations are not in the given source. Only /ˈsɔːlzbərɪ, -brɪ/ is given, which can be simplified to /ˈsɔːlzbəri/ in our IPA system. --maczkopeti (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- in spite of the discussion we have had here, you reverted back to your change in the Salisbury article. My points are these: first, the pronunciations given have been added so that they can be seen only when hovered over, so they don't take up space. Therefore, removing them doesn't make any positive difference. Secondly, the pronunciations that have been removed by you are not wrong. So you have taken away information which is not incorrect and have not improved the readability. I totally respect that you know your subject: it's abundantly clear. But I would ask you, please, to respect that fact that I can read and understand IPA and I have local knowledge of various pronunciations, meaning I can assure you that the pronunciations given are correct and provide more information. Deleting them does not improve the article, and that, I am quite certain, is the purpose of editing Wikipedia. Once again, I politely ask that you leave the article as it was before your edit. Should you think this unacceptable, I would ask that you seek consensus on the Salisbury article talk page. If you do get consensus to change it, then you will receive no further objection from me. Bear in mind that it is you who is changing it and me who wants it to stay as it was, so the onus is on you to get consensus. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NEDOCHAN:

[T]he pronunciations given have been added so that they can be seen only when hovered over, so they don't take up space.

Ironically, the pronunciations moved out of note actually takes up less space than the text "various pronunciations". There is also nothing in the note that a simple notation doesn't cover (or do better).

[T]he pronunciations that have been removed by you are not wrong.

For the last time, I did not remove any of the pronunciations. I just simplified them. That is, instead of writing it out like this:

/ˈsɔːlzbəri, ˈsɒlzbəri/, locally /ˈsɔːzbəri/

I can simplify them by replacing repeating syllables with a hyphen, which gives:

/ˈsɔːlzbəri, ˈsɒlz-/, locally /ˈsɔːz-/

This a practice employed by pretty much every mainstream dictionary, including Collins Dictionary.

If you want to argue that I removed the /bri/ endings, I already linked H:IPAE § Note 32., which explains that /bər.i/ can be both [bə.ri] and [bri].

I have local knowledge of various pronunciations, meaning I can assure you that the pronunciations given are correct and provide more information.

Do you really have any reliable sources to back you up? If not, then you're basically doing WP:OR, so you can't really oppose if someone actually removes them. --maczkopeti (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the main point. Your edits have not improved the article and it is you who's changing it. Not me. Therefore, as is usual, take it to the talk page and seek consensus. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have not improved the article and it is you who's changing it.

You can give me vague statements like that, but that doesn't change the fact that you're seemingly adding unsourced information, which I need no consensus to remove. --maczkopeti (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the removal of the spelled-out pronunciations - i.e. SAWLZ-b(ə-)ree etc. This is helpful. Seek consensus on the talk page to change the first sentence: this is fairly standard. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respellings are not mandatory, and the only reason I removed them is because respelling of /ˈsɒlzbri/ (SOLZ-bree) can be misinterpreted as /ˈsoʊlzbri/, and I saw no reason to keep it for one pronunciation, but not the other. --maczkopeti (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with that compromise. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hermano Pule and Niña Jose

I would like to inquire as to why you removed the pronunciations for Hermano Pule and Niña Jose, who are Filipinos with Filipino names whose pronunciations are NOT commonly known in English. The English pronunciation of Hermano was based on an English-Spanish dictionary. It was then approximated into English through Help:IPA/Spanish. The pronunciation of his name can be heard in this Filipino-language TV report.

English approximation of Niña is same as the English-language article La Niña. While the English approximation of José was approximated from the Spanish pronunciation [xoˈse] through Help:IPA/Spanish. Jollibinay (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword here is approximation. Those articles should have Tagalog (or even Spanish) pronunciations instead of arbitrary approximations. --maczkopeti (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabification

Stop this. Most of the (potential) consonant clusters you have split can be realized with yod-dropping or coalescence. Just because /Cj/ is found right after a checked vowel doesn't mean /j/ must be pronounced. Nardog (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. As much as I occasionally find some of your edits objectionable, I generally appreciate your edits, as evidenced by the barnstar above. Nardog (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. M. Coetzee

Hello. As for J. M. Coetzee's pronunciation, please see Talk:J. M. Coetzee#Pronunciation of name. --saebou (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St.

I don't think this should be removed because St. quite frequently undergoes reduction in RP while it does not in GA. To denote the reduction or lack thereof helps readers especially when it is lexicalized inside a phrase. Look up saint, S~ in CEPD and LPD or see this blog entry of 19 June 2007 for more. Nardog (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/ɪə, ʊə/

I don't know where you got the idea that "before a stressed /r/, /iː/ becomes /ɪə/",[5] but I don't think it's true. As you know, /ɪə, ʊə/ are realized as /ɪ, ʊ/ in GA, so if what you say was true, /iː, uː/ and /ɪ, ʊ/ would have to be neutralized before /r/ in almost all circumstances in GA. But we know this is not true because there clearly are words pronounced with /iːˈr/ such as derail, prerequisite, and rewrite (note there are also words like hero, zero, Nero, and series, where /ɪr/ and /iːr/ are equally probable options). Granted, these are all affixed words or words where /ɪr/ is also an option, but the bottom line is that since there clearly are words pronounced with /iːˈr/, we don't know for sure we can automatically convert all instances of /iːˈr/ to /ɪəˈr/. If you have changed /iːˈr, uːˈr/ in articles just because you thought they must be uniformly changed to /ɪəˈr, ʊəˈr/, I recommend you revert them. Nardog (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of pronunciation in lead of minor-planet articles

Maczkopeti, please stop removing content from the lead section of several minor-planet articles such as in 2241 Alcathous.

Your explanation "Removed pronunciation already in infobox" is against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states that "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". So your perceived redundancy is in fact a requirement. Also, MOS:LEADPRON is of no concern to names that are not apparent from their spelling. Your removal of content in the body of the article may even trigger the removal of the pronunciation in the infobox, as it is now not part of the summary of the article anymore.

I have reverted some of your exact same edits already several weeks ago. So again, I ask you to stop your disruptive editing. Rfassbind – talk 19:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that infoboxes are not visible to mobile users. YBG (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfassbind: From my observation, pronunciations are either only in the opening, or only in the infobox. Most medical and name articles I've seen seem to fit the latter case, and I don't see why minor-planet articles would be any different.

@YBG: Infoboxes are perfectly visible on my end. --maczkopeti (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It is navboxes and sidebars that are missing in the mobile view, for example, desktop view vs. mobile view. YBG (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maczkopeti in my first post I informed you about the guidelines in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I even quoted them. Nevertheless you chose to ignore everything I posted. Instead, you present your own non-policy based conclusion. Until now I have assumed good faith. Please stop removing the pronunciation from the lead of minor-planet object articles. Rfassbind – talk 12:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't jump into conclusions so fast if I were you. I simply gave examples of articles where the pronunciations are either only in the opening or only in the infobox. Either the guideline is poorly enforced, or pronunciations are not considered "key facts" in the case of the aforementioned examples. --maczkopeti (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

Please do not edit war. Please start a talk page discussion for long standing article content removal. -72bikers (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something's long standing doesn't mean that it's correct. The notation doesn't follow the phonotactics of English (geminated /s/, /ær/ before consonant), and there's no source to back it all up. --maczkopeti (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the error, Wiki generally prefers fixing content over just removing it. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Maczkopeti. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.	Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.	Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.	How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.	Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.	Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance	Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.

-72bikers (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC) -72bikers (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of MOS:LEADPRON

Many of your edits unfortunately show a complete misunderstanding of MOS:LEADPRON, which says:

If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name.

The only exceptions are ‘names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English’ and ‘common English words with pronunciations that are merely counterintuitive for learners’. Not included among the exceptions are e.g. names that are pronounced differently according to what they refer to, such as Carlisle, or names whose pronunciation can't be ascertained from the spelling, such as Cradley, which might have been /ˈkreɪdli/. I'm currently having to undo a ton of your edits. If you keep making them, you will be reported for vandalism. Libhye (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While undoing your edits, I keep running into edits that have been undone already, by a number of different editors; I'm definitely not alone in disapproving. In what universe is removing the pronunciation of MacLeod, of all names, in keeping with MOS:LEADPRON? Libhye (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Libhye, I just wanted to say that over the last few months I have noticed that Maczkopeti has removed the pronunciations from what looks like thousands of articles, and I personally don't understand how removing useful information from an article could possibly be in the best interest of Wikipedia.

I have also noticed that many people have expressed similar concerns here on Maczkopeti's talk page over the last few months, so I imagine the scale and extent of the information removed from articles could potentially be very very large.

I have nothing against this user personally, but I am worried that he's removing useful information from literally thousands of articles, and, no matter how hard I try, I can't understand how this makes Wikipedia better. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support everything said in the above two posts. I have been wondering how to tackle the issue. I had a debate with this user about the pronunciation of Newcastle here in Australia. There is frequent "discussion" on its pronunciation here, but this user was certain there could not be. That position was worrying. That is but on example, but such certainty, about how the language is used in a place I suspect this user has never visited, is unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find most of Maczkopeti's edits conducive, but I have also found they have been applying LEADPRON a bit too loosely in some cases. For one, they have said, "I think the pronunciation for common names should be noted when it differs from the most common one". Putting aside whether "Margot" is so much of a common name readers don't require a notation, that would be a sensible idea in a paper encyclopedia or dictionary, where entries are arranged alphabetically so one is likely to know where to look for a pronunciation. But Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. People visiting Margot Robbie for the pronunciation of her name most likely won't even think of looking up Margot upon seeing a lack of notation or interpret it as an indicator of "the same as the most common variant", and others visiting the page for other reasons have now lost the opportunity to know the pronunciation by chance. For another, they have removed pronunciations of words consisting of common words, such as "Newcastle". "New" and "castle" are common words, but "Newcastle" is not. In that case in particular, there is regional variation in the pronunciation of "castle", within Australia, so it helps to indicate the local pronunciation for good measure. (But I completely agree with Canterbury Tail in this discussion regarding "Sandwich".)

I suppose Maczkopeti's removal of pronunciations (and MOS:LEADPRON to being with) are motivated in part by some people's complaints that pronunciations in the lead amount to too much clutter (see this RfC for example). But what is "apparent from its spelling" and what is not are inevitably subjective and highly subject to one's proficiency in English. It should also be noted that the Manual of Style is merely a generally accepted standard to which occasional exceptions may apply, and that whenever a pronunciation has stood in an article for a long time, it is only natural to assume an implicit consensus to keep it has been established through editing. So I think it's best for Maczkopeti to limit removal of pronunciations to cases obviously incorrect (like this) or incontrovertibly redundant (like this or this), and not revert back upon being reverted.

That being said, I find the accusation that Maczkopeti is a vandal (which implies they are deliberately obstructing the project's purpose) ludicrous and troublesome, along with the idea of indiscriminately undoing their removals. There is no doubt Maczkopeti has removed pronunciations in the belief that that would help improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which one may disagree with and call into question, but no one is entitled to assume lack of such intent until it has been demonstrated. Nardog (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to edit with such certainty, after having had it pointed out that English pronunciation varies much more widely across the globe than they seem to think it does, is certainly heading towards vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think we should worry about whether Maczkopeti is a vandal or not, as his motivations are none of our business. The only thing that I'm concerned with is that he's been removing valuable information from thousands of articles. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

his motivations are none of our business I agree. It doesn't help to target the editor instead of the edits. Nardog (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radiotelephony IPA notation

I'm in agreement with your most recent edit to Radiotelephony procedure (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiotelephony_procedure&curid=633263&diff=853403489&oldid=847356781), partly because that column is not in the ACP-125 document, and am interested in some more detail. Your edit summary states "too ambiguous to draw conclusive diaphonemic notations from". Can you give some examples of this that would increase my understanding of IPA usage?

This is an aspect of the official ICAO spelling alphabet that was not designed well, and any insight you can give me as to the IPA issues would be of great assistance to me in further writing about the issue on Wikipedia.PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Maczkopeti. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]