User talk:Pariah24

Welcome to my talk page.

• Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
• Please sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~" at the end.
• Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
• Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
• I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

How etymologies work

In response to this edit, I thought I'd try to explain how etymologies work around here. Templates like {{bor}} and {{inh}} are showing the relationship between the language of the entry and the language of the etymon. In this case, Middle English borrowed the term from Old French, so you'd want {{bor|enm|fro|whatever}} in the etymology section of the Middle English entry, but in the English entry, the borrowing is not direct (it was mediated by a term inherited from Middle English), so you should just use {{der|en|fro|whatever}} to show that it is derived from Old French. Finally, "from whence" sounds like bad grammar in prose; a simple "whence" is better (or "from which", if you prefer). Please ask if you have any further questions. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Ok, I get the mistake there, but on back you reverted Compare {{cognate|gml|bak|t=back}}, from {{inh|gml|osx|bak}} when clearly the second template is showing that MLG bak is inherited from OS bak (which is true regardless of the fact that it is in the cognate portion of the etymology) which adds bak to Category:Middle Low German terms inherited from Old Saxon which is helpful, so why would you replace it with a mention template?? Pariah24 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't want an English entry in a category that is explicitly designed to hold Middle Low German terms. The mention template (or even better, the {{cog}} template) allows us to avoid this miscategorisation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge The template does not add the entry word to the category; it adds the word specified in the template. Ergo it is intentionally designed to avoid the problem you describe. Pariah24 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not how categories work on MediaWiki wikis. Categories simply contain all the pages placed in them, and can't know that you might be referring only to a certain word on that page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You're welcome to test it yourself. Pariah24 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Metaknowledge

Templates will only add the current page to a category. No exceptions. —CodeCat 22:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ But they don't automatically add the entry to the relevant category so Metaknowledge's rationale for not using them doesn't make any sense. Pariah24 (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Which entry? —CodeCat 22:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok guys, I'm wrong and I'm sorry. I thought the templates were suppressing categorization, but the categories actually are infected with words that don't belong there. I apologize. For the record categorization suppression is possible; there are templates on Wikipedia for it, I guess it's just not implemented here. Pariah24 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by categorization suppression. The categorization function in Module:utilities does prevent {{inh|gml|osx|bak}} from adding categories in non-entry namespaces. If you add the following here, it doesn't categorize: Old Saxon bak. We also have a |nocat=1 parameter that does the same thing in any namespace. — Eru·tuon 23:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

But {{inh}} has no such parameter by design, because its purpose is to categorise. If you want to use it in a situation where you don't want the category, then you should be using another template. —CodeCat 23:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but Template:etyl is either deprecated or it's not, so what's the deal? You used it rather than mention to revert my edits so clearly if people who are in the know are still using it it's not really deprecated. Pariah24 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case, it would be preferable to use {{cog}}, because the word in question is a cognate. For non-cognates, you can use {{noncog}}. — Eru·tuon 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the existence of t:noncog. I'm just going to avoid etymology sections until I have a better understanding, and stick to things I know very well. Honestly I don't really get how a modern English term can ever be 'derived' from Middle English rather than inherited. Pariah24 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Derived" is a general term that encompasses various ways a word can come from one language into another, including inheritance and borrowing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Then I don't get what the problem was here. Pariah24 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The exact same problem that I discussed in my very first post on this page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To explain it a different way, all these templates ({{der}}, {{inh}}, {{bor}}, etc.) are supposed to describe the relationship between the word that the entry is about and the word in the etymology. So if you're mentioning Old French mesure, you have to say whether the English word measure is derived, inherited, or borrowed from the Old French word. Same for Latin mēnsūra: is the English word derived, inherited, or borrowed from the Latin word?

You, on the other hand, were describing the relationships between Middle English mesure and Old French mesure, and between Old French mesure and Latin mēnsūra. Those relationships belong in the Middle English and the Old French entries respectively. — Eru·tuon 00:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok I get that you can't use the templates in a chain like that, but it appears the first template in the diff I linked {{inh|en|enm|mesure}} is correct and didn't need to be reverted to mention and etyl templates. Pariah24 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, that template was fine. Often people just revert the whole change rather than going through and correcting what was wrong. — Eru·tuon 01:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Pseudo-English IPA on angstrom

In your first revert (this diff) you wrote 'œ does appear in English, but regardless I am not required to use standard English phonemes in a phonetic translation' - what does that even mean exactly? You're required to label phonetic transcriptions. In which accent do speakers say IPA^(key): [ˈɔːŋstɹœm]? Does the source specify that? If not, we should remove it.

The most respected pronunciation dictionaries (CEPD and LPD) mention neither IPA^(key): [œ] in that word or the fact that speakers of RP and GA use it at all. Wells makes it clear that the most common rendering of that vowel is IPA^(key): /ʌ/. The IPA you keep restoring is most probably a mixed English-Swedish pronunciation nobody uses.

Unless you provide an unmodified screenshot of the source I'm taking this issue to the admins.

(Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How nice of you to notify me that you've already taken the issue to the beer parlour. Very fair. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB I didn't see this part earlier; I don't know anything about phonetics, or you don't understand what I said? The Wikipedia article w:Near-open front unrounded vowel has references to English phonetic occurences of [æ] in it, and I was merely asking if by your logic we should just get rid of all that stuff since you oppose to its (phonetic, not phonemic) use in English. I don't see how that's confusing or makes me look stupid. Perhaps if you were to employ a little tact or "good faith" as they say and not treat people you disagree with like idiots, or call information from Oxford "pseudo-English," you would warrant a better reaction next time. You're going to need it if you plan on making a career out of deleting people's referenced contributions without any discussion, and only offering any after starting an edit war. Pariah24 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB I just realized you're the same guy who was harassing me the other day about closing my AfD after it was obviously settled. I've been contributing to various Wikis for many years, and I can count the number of times I've had arguments and people questioning my edits on one hand. Maybe two. You've started crap with me twice in a couple weeks. This tells me it's probably a problem with you, not I. I'm not going to carry this any further because I'm an adult, but I will post the OED screenshot in my beer parlor post, simply because the paywall should not prevent people from examining it. Pariah24 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, did you really just insinuate that I would attempt to make a fake screenshot? Give me a break. Pariah24 (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And lastly, if OED (not the same as oxforddictionaries.com) isn't on your "list of respected pronunciation dictionaries" something is wrong pal.Pariah24 (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pariah24 'I just realized you're the same guy who was harassing me the other day about closing my AfD after it was obviously settled.' - did you seriously write that? Here is the relevant diff. You should thank me for doing your job for you! (Redacted)

'You've started crap with me twice in a couple weeks.' - no, I haven't. The only time we had an argument was over the angstrom entry and nowhere else.

(Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line seems to be that you just can't stand being challenged and/or proven wrong and so you make up accusations and try to intimidate me into avoiding your edits (flash news: ain't gonna happen), even if they come up on my watchlist (as the one on w:Help:IPA/English did). (Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that you wrote two messages. My bad. I'll try to reply to the first one:

The edit summary I was talking about said 'furthermore, your rationale makes no sense, unless you plan to gut all references to English from the Wikipedia article on this vowel. Stop making mountains out of molehills. proper pronunciations and common ones differ all of the time. Get over yourself'. Also, the vowel we're talking about is the open-mid front rounded vowel, not the near-open front unrounded one.

'I don't see how that's confusing or makes me look stupid. Perhaps if you were to employ a little tact or "good faith" as they say and not treat people you disagree with like idiots' - just because you don't understand something one time that doesn't make you an idiot. (Redacted)

'or call information from Oxford "pseudo-English,"' - it is pseudo-English. They don't say in which accent people say IPA^(key): [ɔːŋstrœm], their IPA is incomplete (there's no stress mark) and I know for a fact that speakers of both RP and GA do not use IPA^(key): [œ] in loanwords, not to mention native words. (Redacted)

'You're going to need it if you plan on making a career out of deleting people's referenced contributions without any discussion, and only offering any after starting an edit war.' - I said in the edit summary why I was removing it and I provided references after reverting you once. That's not edit warring. If anything, you edit warred with me. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User page

Hi, just passing by to tell you that I find what you wrote on your user page unfair, but frankly funny. Cheers --Barytonesis (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis Always happy to serve. I was a bit heated when I wrote that but I think there's some truth there even if it is unfair. Pariah24 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

IPA

Judging by your edits, you have some problems with understanding how English phonetics work. For instance, here and here I reverted your addition of intervocalic glottal stops in 'RP' pronunciation (which in fact are strongly non-RP), here I removed aspiration after /s/ (which is strongly non-native) and here I removed an incorrect Australian pronunciation of rude.

Please watch it, not least because your user page says 'This user is currently working on IPA standardization'. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The edit with the glottal stops was a mistake, I meant to put UK not RP, but of course you just always revert shit instead of being helpful and fixing it. You seem to think I just put my guesses on Wiktionary for fun, so read my lips dumbass: EVERYTHING I ADD IS SOURCED, EVEN IF IT'S MINOR AND I DONT INCLUDE A CITATION. I know how this project works. You don't seem to get it how it works; if you did you would stop acting like the policeman of Wikipedia who must save it from bad edits. Only people with personality disorders like you think reverting stuff all the time is a benefit to this project. Fuck off and stay off my talk page. Pariah24 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stay civil. —Rua (mew) 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No, no, let me rewrite that for you: Thank you for correcting my mistakes. There you go, that's much better.

The edit with the glottal stops was a mistake, I meant to put UK not RP - Yet you did it twice. Here, you explicitly said added glottal stop pronunciation in RP in the edit summary. Maybe that's the mistake you're talking about, I don't know.

but of course you just always revert shit instead of being helpful and fixing it. - Sometimes reverting can be synonymous to fixing. You just can't stand being challenged, that's all. And, of course, to say that is to completely disregard dozens of edit summaries that I typically provide when I revert you. You're being dishonest.

so read my lips dumbass: EVERYTHING I ADD IS SOURCED, EVEN IF IT'S MINOR AND I DONT INCLUDE A CITATION. - Does that include impossible intervocalic glottal stops in RP (and General American!), the non-native aspiration after /s/ and the Australian pronunciation of rude with /oː/? It's interesting how you completely disregarded the last two in your message.

Only people with personality disorders like you think reverting stuff all the time is a benefit to this project. - What nonsense. Not that I have to explain myself to you (and obviously you're just being dishonest for the sake of bombarding me with pseudo-arguments to look like you have a case), but anyone can take a look at my contributions to see how that 'argument' is not true.

I know how this project works. - No, you don't. It's a personal blog for you, and if you're challenged you raise hell. What did you say about personality disorders again?

You don't seem to get it how it works; if you did you would stop acting like the policeman of Wikipedia who must save it from bad edits. (...) Fuck off and stay off my talk page. - Not gonna happen. You do not get to have your edits go unchallenged as if you were the owner of Wiktionary or something. From now on, I will take a look at them every day because I can. If you can't discriminate between being reverted or corrected for a reason and being reverted 'because you're being bullied' (or whatever you're thinking) then it's a problem for Wiktionary and it says something about you, rather than about me.

Because this is a collaborative project, if I'll see you adding wrong transcriptions with any consistency I'll have no choice but to talk to admins (actually, I'm considering doing it today, but I have to watch PSG vs. Bayern first - I have my priorities, you know?) Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)