User talk:Nardog/2019

He asked me why the labiodental m is not used in Help:IPA/Italian, in favor of regular m. I did not know, so I redirected him to you. Do you know, due to your better experience? IPA editor (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

How did he ask you that if that is not in his edit history? Pardon me for being blunt, but are you another one of the sockpuppets that have been asking that same question for weeks? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: What's a sockpuppet?

OT: He asked me on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Check my talk page there. IPA editor (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That IP address seems to belong to a Slovakian proxy. What you're doing is too transparent. I'd report you but that'd get ignored like most of what I write to Wikipedia admins (that's regardless of whether they have a point or not), so I'll leave it up to Nardog to decide whether he wants to do that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I don't understand your suspicion. Viviocon and Iuscaogdan have been demonstrated to be different people (unless they're so good at covering their tracks), and as far as I can see nothing about IPA editor's contributions indicates such account abuse. This is no place to speculate, remember WP:AGF and Hanlon's razor. Nardog (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that this guy brings up the same issue as the sockpuppets basically 24 hours after his first edit sufficient? The IP address belongs to a proxy and neither it nor IPA editor have made any kinds of edits to Commons besides to IPA editor's talk page ([1], [2]). Why would the anon write there and not on Wikipedia? How would he know if IPA editor was going to be able to read the message? Also, why would the first edits of IPA editor be to the articles Labiodental nasal, Help:IPA/Italian and Help:IPA/Spanish (see [3])? To me there are just too many instances of strange behaviors (especially the first one) to dismiss any single one of them (which may or may not be a coincidence). To me, the response of the anon from today is just a diversion.

You'll do what you want with it, but to me this is genuine evidence for IPA editor being another sockpuppet. I wouldn't call it speculation, though I have no reason to press the issue further if you are not interested in doing that. Again, this is your call. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@IPA editor: If you're still interested, you can see my input at #Help:IPA/Italian right above on this page. I don't know if "Fotrion" (which is a sock of Viviocon) is the same person as the IP on Commons, but my reply serves as a reply to them anyway. Several editors have said basically the same things as I did, e.g. here and here.

Also, whenever you want to notify someone of something at some other place, link to it. A link to Commons can be made by commons: prefix, as in [[commons:User talk:IPA editor]]—see Help:Interwiki linking for more. Or you could have at least just put the bare URL. Nardog (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: @Nardog: I'm not the same person as the IP, if that's what you're looking for. I've never even been to Slovakia. I was only bringing up the labiodental nasal issue because the IP asked me and I didn't know. IPA editor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@IPA editor: I apologize if I falsely accused you after all. The evidence looks solid to me, but I could've been mistaken (or not - I have no idea).

I don't want to spam Nardog's talk page with this kind of messages anymore so this will be the last one from me. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: Wikipedia is accessed by 500 million people every month. It's not at all inconceivable that multiple people have similar thoughts and decide to do something about it on Wikipedia within a short period of time. It's also possible that they're not the same person but were inspired by the same thing, like a post on the internet somewhere. The IP knew IPA editor would be notified because that person seems to be quite acquainted for an IP with how things work on Wikipedia (I assume they were just trying to be sneaky and IPA editor ironically blew their cover). If the articles you mentioned were the very first articles IPA editor edited, I too would have found it suspicious. But IPA editor's editing behavior simply doesn't align with that of Viviocon or Iuscaogdan (again, unless they are SO good). And frankly, it doesn't matter if someone is using multiple accounts so long as they are not abusing them, like being disruptive to other people or doing it to achieve an agenda. I would rather point to the fact that none of those who were complaining about the Italian key not using [ɱ] have taken it to Help talk:IPA/Italian and tried to have an honest discussion, despite having been suggested to do so by several editors. Now that is quite odd, and if people keep forum-shopping about this supposed discrepancy instead of trying to reach a consensus and put it to bed for good, that's when it becomes disruptive, whether sockpuppetry is involved or not. (So it may be a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.) Nardog (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And he got banned. This is why we shouldn't base our judgement on the way suspected *puppets speak to us (I'm not saying that you did by the way). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Viviocon#19_December_2018_2 - the way this guy behaves is as if he were a carbon copy of Diabedia (I'm not saying that others aren't capable of similar behavior, but that's who he reminds me of). Now I'm also pretty sure that Iuscaogdan is also one of the *puppets. The fact that he started behaving in a civil matter once he saw a chance that his proposal (or demand, which perhaps is a more accurate description) might be accepted after all is probably additional proof for my theory. The fact that another *puppet attack on your page occurred a few hours after I conceded defeat on WikiProject Linguistics is probably no coincidence either and I think that you may present that as additional evidence in the SI. The way Iuscaogdan started off on Wikipedia is very strange indeed and I do believe he's a *puppet. I've actually believed that from the very beginning. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edits to reduce "EXPENSIVE" ifexists have caused some error transclusions on Click consonant, Ejective consonant andImplosive consonant. These articles are also populating Category:IPA pages with non-existing IPA audio soundfile. I believe the (false-positive) errors are from Template:IPA link calls from Template:IPA soundbox. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Thank you for notifying me about this. I think I've dealt with the errors in those templates if there were any, and now it seems the errors in those articles are coming from {{ISBN}}. The category addition is and has been the way it is by design, by the way. Nardog (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you have created a whole bunch of cross-namespace redirects (from H: to Help:), but these seem to violate the consensus not to create any more of these[4]. Can you indicate if there was consensus to create these anyway (or a more recent discussion overruling the RfC I linked to)? Until then, please stop creating any more of these. Fram (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm not aware what the latest consensus is, but Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces only says it's case-sensitive. I only created them because I just realized that, even though there are H:IPA-en etc., most of which I created earlier and some of which had existed before, typing e.g. "h:ipa-en" in the search box and hitting Enter/Return doesn't redirect to anywhere unless there is h:ipa-en or H:IPA-EN. If the consensus is not to create them, then you would have to delete the lowercase ones too. Nardog (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see that that page (which seems to be more recent) states that H (and some others) may be freely used and have broad community support, so you may disregard my query here and continue to create these. Thank you! Fram (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sibilant and non-sibiliant are distinct. 78.54.72.200 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

According to whom? In what context? Nobody is disputing their existence per se, the only reason we don't have a separate article for it is because it's not notable. We discuss the sound in a section of an article called "Voiced retroflex fricative", not "Voiced retroflex sibilant fricative", not to mention we don't have separate articles for sibilant/non-sibilant sounds (except for the dental non-sibilant affricates, but that's because dental sibilant affricates are covered in the articles about alveolar affricates). I don't understand what you're getting at. Nardog (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The {{error}} check you recently added to Template:Audio has flagged errors in Chord (music), Ninth, Piet Kee and List of chords. Can you fix these? I'm not sure what to do about the missing audio files. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a good idea to trigger errors in other namespaces. There are a bunch in Talk: and fixing them seems problematic. Some are deleted on commons, and I don't know if it's OK to create redirects in filespace on commons or not. Files used in talk may be deleted if they are no longer used in mainspace. wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Since there were only four errors in mainspace, and these are likely to be infrequent, I'm fine with flagging them in mainspace. I have a version that does that in the sandbox When these happen in the future (possibly by vandalism), I would likely just revert back to the last version that didn't have the error if I couldn't fix it otherwise. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I actually fixed dozens of them when I made the template show an error and those four are the ones I regrettably overlooked. I have made it so that {{error}} is used only in the main namespace and removed the link to the missing file. Nardog (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you've added disambiguation templates to pages such as Alveolar fricative. This raises the question of how we fix the incoming links. One view (expressed better here) is that topics such as Alveolar fricative are (not-very-)broad concepts rather than ambiguous terms. It's certainly possible to talk about alveolar fricatives in general, and incoming links often intend that general sense, in a way that's not true of, say, Mercury. (It's hard to say anything specific about the planet, god and chemical element as a group). Could we label these pages in some other way? Certes (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Piling on :) Yes, Template:Phonetics disambiguation admits it's not really a dab when its documentation says There are only a few pages that use this template, and many of them should be expanded into short articles like Dental stop. When they are, the template should be deleted. Make it a set index at least, if not a flat-out broad concept. Voiceless Alveolar fricative and voiced Alveolar fricative are both simply two types of Alveolar fricative, and not things unrelated to each other, right. Plus, most editors will have no clue about how to "disambiguate" these. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Certes and Wbm1058: Sorry, my mind's not working right now. Will get back to you later. Thanks for your patience. Nardog (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No hurry; thanks for replying. I think WBM's idea of an SIA is a good compromise. When we agree on a solution, let's remember to include Dental fricative which I reverted yesterday. Certes (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Certes and Wbm1058: Thanks again for your patience. Given the way the phonetics-related articles are currently structured (which relies on the IPA's taxonomy), these pages are unlikely to grow to be anything more than a dictionary definition. And my personal inclination is that a DAB page is much better than an unreferenced substub. If an incoming link is intended to refer to both (or either) of the voiced and voiceless variants, then fixing it as e.g. [[Dental fricative (disambiguation)|Dental fricative]] seems reasonable to me. In fact, some of the links to Dental fricative were only talking about one variant. If it were marked as a DAB, they would have likely been fixed because DPL bot would have notified the users who instated the links. If a broad-concept article is preferred, then it ought to have at least the bare minimum of discussion and sourcing, if you ask me. I wasn't familiar with the concept of an SIA, but I can also see that as an option. Nardog (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIA. Think of it as a sort of "soft disambiguation". Notices on editors' talk pages: good, if they respond promptly. Not so good if the work falls to the DPL patrol. wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my change. I saw the issue right after I edited, and I researched it and realized I needed to self-revert, but you beat me to it by 2 minutes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)