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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
Merrian Webster & American Heritage Dictionary, MW & AHD in short, doesn't use International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA
MW & AHD has too many inconsistencies
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)
WP:ANI#Unsourced edits by user Santiago Claudio. Feel free to comment. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)