User talk:Vanisaac/Archive1

License tagging for File:1bc00.png .. 1bc6a.png

Thanks for uploading File:1bc00.png .. File:1bc6a.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Added PublicDomain:Font tag to all Vanisaac (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Duployan shorthand

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Margarine

Hi. Your revision of my revision of G implies that the word margarine is of Romance origin. Doesn't that mean that it derives from the Latin? margarine comes from the Greek μαργαρίτης, meaning "pearl." Peter M. Brown (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure enough. I moved it to the non-Romance paragraph. I actually hadn't known the etymology of margarine before. Vanisaac (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. The third paragraph in G#Usage is about languages, not words. An exception to the rule that "Non-Romance languages typically use ‹g› to represent /ɡ/ regardless of position" would have to be a language. I propose dropping the rest of that sentence and changing the final sentence in the previous paragraph to read

There are many English words of non-Romance origin where ‹g› is hard though followed by ‹e› or ‹i› (e.g. get, gift) or soft though followed by ‹a› (margarine).

Make sense? Peter M. Brown (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:TDright.svg

I've deleted this image per your request. The reason you gave isn't sufficient for speedy deletion; however, the fact that you're the uploader and you're requesting deletion makes it eligible for author-requested speedy deletion. In the future, if you ever want to have an image deleted that you uploaded, simply tag it with {{db-g7}}. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: New Binary Template

Go ahead and change it yourself if you're sure it works properly.

It's been a long time since I've dealt with those templates anyway, so you probably understand it better than I do at this point. Jkasd 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

alphabet / abjad

Actually, calling an abjad "alphabetic" is not "just plain wrong"; it's what many of our RS's do. It also fits the structure of the article, which is on the history of the "alphabet", not the history of the "abjad". The article does make it clear that we're speaking of consonantal alphabets; whether we call them "consonantal alphabets" or "abjads" is merely a matter of style. Either is acceptable. Also, when you are reverted, not because you're wrong but because your edits do not fit the context of the article, it would be helpful if you would actually read the article to understand that context before edit warring over it. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanisaac. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 11:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New plot summary at Gigot

Hi, Vanisaac. You know, that new text at Gigot really is terrible writing. Should we really just band-aid it, or should we do more? Harry. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Harry. I'm using a spellchecker to fix articles as they get saved with spelling errors. I didn't even read the article for quality - merely to confirm that the spelling fixes don't interfere with a template or are actually a foreign term. I have ZERO interest in the film Gigot. Sorry. VI_WS ^talk 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. It's just that I hate "thumbprinters" and always think twice before I become one. Cordially. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. What the heck do you mean by "thumbprinter"? VI_WS ^talk

Thumbprinter is someone who stops by and makes changes that don't necessarily improve the piece, just to leave their thumbprint. It seems more polite than the old dog-and-fire-hydrant analogy. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I find spelling errors odious enough that I consider those kinds of changes to actually be improving the piece. Plus, I can have episodes of Castle playing in the background on my computer and catch the spellchecker every couple minutes. That way I'm contributing, but don't have to think that much. ;) I'm actually just kind of biding time waiting for some responses to a request for editor assistance. VI_WS ^talk

Oh, all spelling errors are odious enough to require immediate fixing. I was talking about style changes, just for the sake of changing, just to gratify the ego of the changer and make him/her feel they've "won." No, I appreciate your patrolling! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh. Well, I'm glad you don't think of me as some sort of unprincipled interloper. I guess I can understand your perspective, but don't really have any experiences that I would qualify similarly. I guess the world of movies is filled with more attention seekers than Writing Systems is. VI_WS ^talk

Movies, and history. I always welcome improvements to the text, it's change-just-for-its-own-sake that rankles. Having said that, the new text at Gigot is just awful — except to the editor who wrote it. Hence my reluctance to come stomping in and start changing it. Thanks again for your vigilance! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanisaac. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 13:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mass move of scripts to wrong names

You also complained about that, I took it to ANI, after I saw him deleting the Arwi dab page. Also in his moves he gave no comments as far as I could see. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thai script

Hello, Vanisaac. You have new messages at Paul 012's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template talk:Did you know/Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project

Your DYK nomination of Template talk:Did you know/Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project is still not complete. You haven't yet done Step 3 of T:TDYK#How to list a new nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, yes, I did. VI_WS ^talk 03:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you had already nominated on July 23 here. So why did you nominate it a second time at Template talk:Did you know/Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project? It's very confusing to have multiple copies of the same nomination. I'm going to go ahead and delete the second one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This process was just about as confusing as possible, and I have received basically no assistance at all in the process. It took four days to answer my first question, and is taking another four before anyone answers my second. If you had tried to design a less helpful process, I'm not sure you could do better than DYK. I hope you are able to make things better there, but I will not be back. VI_WS ^talk 04:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is admittedly some confusion because we are in the middle of changing the process. (The transition to the new process happened just a couple days after July 23, when you posted the first nomination). I wrote very clear instructions, though, on how to carry out new nominations, and I thought it was clear that there was no need to re-post existing nominations (as the large notice at the top of the edit window says the new instructions apply if you are trying to post a new nomination). As for the time it took to get a review, the page has a long backlog and this delay is normal, as explained clearly at T:TDYK#Backlogged?. There is only so much of the process that is within my control; people who want to participate in the process are also expected to read the basic instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that was the problem: I read the instructions and followed them, then I read them again a few days later when I was getting bubkes, and the instructions were different, so I tried to follow the new instructions as well, and ended up with some crazy hybrid of the two. VI_WS ^talk

Makes sense. Hopefully things will get a bit clearer after the transition has sunk in. A little bit of confusion right then was inevitable, it was bad luck that your nom was posted right in the middle of that. Anyway hopefully everything is in place with the nom now. If you need further input from the reviewer it's ok to leave him a reminder at his talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppeting, and heading towards a ban

Dude, I am not the same as Richhoncho -- but you are the same as User:VanityKills. You got that account banned, and if you behave the same way with this one, then you'll get it banned too... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I jumped to an assumption based on somewhat suspicious circumstances -- you came along two minutes after an anonymous IP vandal, and instead of reverting his vandalism, you fixed typos in it, and your account name begins with the the letters "Vani-" which the anonymous IP user's blocked account name also began with, and which the article that the anonymous IP user focused on vandalizing also begins with. I see no need to go to checkuser -- your future behavior will reveal this rather suspicious conjunction of circumstances to have been either a coincidence or part of a pattern... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I correct a misspelled word? I use a spell-check monitor to do some WikiGnomish edits, but since it only checks articles being saved, I sometimes end up covering the tracks of vandals. You've gotta actually look at the history instead of jumping to conclusions. VanIsaac_WS

I jumped to conclusions because I did check the history, and several things seemed either rather suspicious or rather coincidental... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This is about Vanity Kills (see edit history), not about Talk:History of the alphabet (I didn't make the slightest connection there, since you used an obfuscatory signature "VIWS"[sic] in that discussion). AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been changing that around a bit. I finally figured out that you can have one part of your name link to your user page, with another linking to your talk. I've been trying to pare the sig down; the WS is because of my involvement in WikiProject Writing systems. VanIsaac_WS 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, notice how mine are both spelling fixes. Hit the (prev) button to see what each of the edits were. Just try to do your homework in the future before you make accusations. VanIsaac_WS 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I am Richhoncho and I swear I am me and me alone! It all looks like an accident of laziness (at least that's what my reversion of Vanity Kills was), so I will post my apologies here for my bad edit summary. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading through that article, I can honestly say that I actively and vehemently do not give a rat's pitutie about the subject matter. You can officially mark me as militantly apathetic. VanIsaac_WS 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your spear of truth! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

Please don't correct the spelling of quotes as they should not be changed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

your changes to the Alan Mcilwraith article, the section about his wikipedia article as it was at the time contains typos because that is how it was written - to correct the typos makes the quote inaccurate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Writingsystem-stub}} usage

On 14 August you did many edits with the edit summary "clean up using AWB". To some articles you added Category:Stub-Class Writing system article, which you later removed. To other articles you added {{Writingsystem-stub}}, but you did not remove this. For some time I have been cleaning up the articles about the letters of the Cyrillic script, and deleting the stub markers because I thought there wasn't much more to be said about the letters, even though the articles are short. Did you intentionally tag all these articles as stubs? —Coroboy (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I did. All of these articles are classified as Writing System Stubs on their talk pages, but I believe some of them are incorrectly classified. For the Category:Stub-Class Writing system article, I was trying to do some trickery to enable a bulk reassess as class=start, but it didn't work for me, so I'm back to the drawing board. As to the Cyrillic (and other) letters, my criteria for adding the writing system stub template or not was whether, in addition to the computing codes, it contained information about usage or the history of the letter. If it did, I was going to add it to the bulk reassess of those articles to start class. Otherwise, it is still really a stub by my reading of the Writing System assessment criteria, so it should have the stub template included. I realize that my whole process was a bit obfuscating, and I apologize for the confusion. If you think those articles should not be stub class, let's start up a conversation on Wikipedia talk:WPW, and see if others can put in their two cents, but we need to not only remove the template, but also reassess them on their talk pages if that's the case. VanIsaac_WS 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have one distinct prejudice that may be at the heart of the matter, which is that I don't consider a table or a sidebar to be weighty content when assessing an article. That may be a miscalculation on my part, but it seems to me that a couple paragraphs need to be present for an article to move out of stub territory. Just for full disclosure. VanIsaac_WS 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I will leave the stub tags on the articles. I will let someone else assess the articles and modify both the talk page and the article together as appropriate.

I would give weight to tables, because sometimes its much easier to assimilate material presented in tables than in text, especially if its a series of the same sort of information, e.g. the usage of a letter in a series of languages. —Coroboy (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New templates

You might want to look at these Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16#New_templates. -DePiep (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you too contributed substantial edits :-) to those WS templates, I'd like to have your opinion on this way of going. We could go ahead using the new ones, and let the old ones disappear with all their troubles. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If we have the same functionality, I am fine with dumping the old ones. The only reason I put up such a fuss is because we had a lot of things broken. If they had simply put in a notice that said "Hey, these templates are no good due to provenance. Since they're being used, can you guys work on creating a new version that doesn't have the same problems?", and I would have said, "Yeah, I'll work on porting all that stuff over to a new template in order to get everything square because of this jackhole. Why don't you check back in about three days, and I'll leave a message if we've managed to make a new template and move all the transclusions, so you can delete it without a problem." That's what I would have said. Since this got badly contentious, I never had the opportunity to say it, but I stand by the thought. If you've made new templates with the same functionality, and all the transclusions have been updated, then let's axe the sumbitsch. VanIsaac_WS 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw & felt the same, some 12 hours earlier. It really was a mess, and noone wanted to clean it up. I crancked out the DRV, you brought it to ANI (hell, they could have butchered you there), which got it back on track. To avoid discussions with still entrenched admins, I rebuild them with pleasure. btw, a DRV is open, it is not tied to a single admin. Here is a Handwritten Barnstar for working forward against the current flow for you.

Technically, please keep looking for bugs and disfunctioning. After a few good days I will sideline the old ones. The {{ISO 15924}} then stay of course. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload your free media to Commons, please!

It is better if your free images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. Freely licensed or public domain media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Thank you: Jay8g (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IP edits on kana articles

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable_edits_to_kana_articles. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback On My Edit Style

Feedback on my edit to "Trema (diacritic)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trema_(diacritic)&oldid=447263726) is appreciated and noted. You found it obnoxious instead of what I intend, which is slightly snarky and funny , as well as useful by correcting typos. I am likely to keep the same ever so slightly snarky edit summary, but mark my future edits "this is a minor edit" to avoid the chance of being perceived as obnoxious instead of good-naturedly funny. Thanks for the polite feedback! Go in peace, my child! ;D Francis of Assisi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Whitespace

re Whitespace in Unicode char properties: I do not understand your action, your es, and I reverted. What do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You deleted "whitespace" from the article. Your edit summary said you were adding it. The edit summary was markedly counterfactual. I quite honestly thought you had no idea what you had done, and I'm still not sure you know what you did. VanIsaac_WS 21:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Strike that, I don't know what I did. The edit window only showed you deleting the term "whitespace" from the "other important general characteristics" section. Either I completely missed the additional paragraph, or my browser/the server screwed up and didn't show that change. VanIsaac_WS 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK then. Indeed I changed the sections, which might look confusing. So we agree it is OK now, and let's go ahead with next nice edits. -DePiep (talk)

administrative questions

Hi, Vanisaac. I see that you have reverted a couple of edits by 118.96.149.139 recently. He also created Category talk:Symbols which I think should be deleted. How do you go about getting a page deleted?

Just follow the instructions at Categories for deletion. You can also check out the speedy deletion criteria, but I doubt it would qualify under any of those criteria. VanIsaac_WS

I'm sorry, I just realized you weren't looking for deleting the category, just the talk page. Talk pages are usually not deleted unless there are threats or the like, but you can bring it up at the ANI discussion. VanIsaac_WS 02:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It also seems that this user is only doing vandalism. Where do you report it for someone to consider blocking the address? —Coroboy (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My preferred place to take these sorts of things is at Admin noticeboard: Incidents. I would definitely ask them if this is a conversation that would be more appropriate for RfC (Requests for Comment), but admins and others will take a look at the contributions of the IP. You just start a new section named something like "Persistent vandalism by User:118.96.149.139". Just spell out with links to a few choice examples of his/her editing behavior, and post a link to his contributions page, and see what others say. You definitely need to post a message to the IP talk page telling him/her about the ANI discussion - it looks really good if you provide a direct link to the exact section you started as well. Don't expect too much from this, but it puts that contributor on a lot of people's radar. The fact that neither you nor anybody else has written about these issues on his talk page lessen the likelihood of a ban or block of any sort, but the previous block could be a deciding factor. Remember that people who disagree with your assessment are generally going to be taken quite seriously, especially if they show a legitimate alternate interpretation of the editing pattern. That's my suggestion. VanIsaac_WS 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

I removed several copyvios by some rogue user. If he will harass me, help me. Thanks. JOHNDOE (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples of copyvios removed by me:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metric_system&diff=prev&oldid=449320597

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Units_of_measurement_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=449320512

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Republican_Calendar&diff=prev&oldid=449320466

They were restored, so I suppressed them. JOHNDOE (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I replicated your copyvio suppression: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&action=historysubmit&diff=449214957&oldid=449203639 JOHNDOE (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I put notes about copyvios in all affected articles. I hope that they will help. BTW, if this rogue user from copyvio diffs will make me some harm, report him. JOHNDOE (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Complementarianism. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I do NOT agree with this being placed on this users talk page. Basileias (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji rewritten

It was suggested by you about the concerned article that "someone can go in and separate and organize the flecks of verifiable content from the horde of nonsense" - well, that has been tried and the result awaits your review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp#Life ...please review it once more and c if it is better than before? Thanks...Svechu (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your close of my ANI report

Another one has popped up and I've filed another CU request, so it may be worth keeping the thread open until the problem goes away. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

...never mind, I notice my CU request was redundant. Nonetheless, I doubt we've seen the last of this user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The "resolved" tag is simply a means of saying that the proposed plan has been implemented. Technically, further SOCKs are actually a new matter, as it's now a person who is evading a ban, rather than a case of SOCKing. But my understanding is that they do keep an eye out for further SOCKs in evasion of the ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attack

Please withdraw your personal attack made here [1]. Hobartimus (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you consider to be an attack on your person? Everything written is about your actions and your failure to advance the conversation by rehashing an argument that no one is interested in hearing. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The second part of Future left you a very simple task above: convince us that you don't deserve to be sanctioned, without talking about why another party should. Hobartimus, you have failed at that simple task in epic proportions.

"Epic failiure" is already not something that I like to hear but that's not the issue, but the fact that there is zero evidence presented against me and you implied that I need to disprove that zero evidence and convince anybody of anything. Frankly I found that outrageous and can find no other explanation that you have not read the section in question. And for this reason thought, that I am under some sort of investigation there with a ton of evidence against me and I need to quickly convince everybody that in my 4 years and 12 500 edits there are some little redeeming qualities that allow me to continue editing Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And yes I considered it a personal attack, because I thought that my contributions so far and my record would speak for themselves, and I felt a bit offended. I will strike the personal attack part however if you dispute that description and simply say that It didn't feel so good for me to read that part. Please indicate if you want me to strike the "personal attack" part from the description of your comments. (on this page, I struck it from ANI already) Hobartimus (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't ever strike my comments, and I never ask others to do so either. I consider every criticism on this page and my archive to be an opportunity to reflect on my actions, and I treat other editors as if they have the same potential for introspection. If you were offended by the "epic failure" comment, then I apologize for my offense. I hope that you can understand how disheartening it was for me to read the latest contribution to an ANI topic that is plagued by editors launching accusations against each other, only to find that the contribution was just another listing of offenses by one party or another. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

PS, this entire topic sphere just seems to be the butt end of Wikipedia editing. I can't think of any reason why a person would get involved. It always saddens me when experienced editors can't seem to work things out together, like in this case. Ah well, c'est la vie. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For keeping an eye on Basket Zaragoza 2002. I just went back to see if our "friend" re-surfaced (I didn't put it on my watchlist) and he most certainly has. I figured it'd be a matter of time before he came back to disrupt. To this day I can't figure out what his agenda is because the edits are just so random. Well hey, he's got to register an account now, so that sucks for him :) Jrcla2 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No. It's an opportunity for him. An opportunity to become a part of the community. An opportunity to learn how to edit so that his contributions can be retained. That is the opposite of sucking. Hopefully, he will take this opportunity and grow. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear free zone

You might want to take a look at Talk:Portugal and better assess the issue and your own involvement. As for User:Mr. Joca, that was most probably a one-day POV account. Whose editing was tendentious after all? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:68.230.252.5, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:68.230.252.5. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your attack has been deleted per WP:NPA. Thank you. Do not pull a stunt like that again. Srobak (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox writing system

Please see my edit carefully. I removed commented image and inner table because the consensus is that the image should be removed. Thanks. --fryed-peach (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I screwed up. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Light-line shorthand systems?

Hi. I noticed you classified Gabelsberger shorthand and Melin Shorthand as light-line, and I started to wonder where is the line between light-line and heavy-line? As far as I know, both Gabelsberger and Melin use thickening, Gabelsberger to express some vowels or diphthongs and Melin to express double consonants. In Gabelsberger, thickening seems quite essential, in Melin not perhaps so much, but calling it light-line sounds a bit strange to me anyway. --Ryhanen (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Heavy-line systems routinely distinguish between thick and thin strokes, like Pitman, and light-line systems routinely do not, like Duployéan. We only had limited information on many shorthand systems when classifying them, generally only the information present in preexisting citations that were available on the web. As such, it is possible that some systems may not be classified correctly.

My only caveat is that shorthand systems often have many adaptations, and a system originally designed as a light line system, such as Duployéan, can have a heavy line adaptation, like Sloan-Duployan. I imagine that Gabelsberger is probably much less clear-cut than Duployéan in that regard, as studying shorthands has really impressed upon me the old maxim that there are no absolutes. Does the heavy-line aspect of Gabelsberger indicate something like vowel length or umlaut? I would suggest determining whether the heavy-line elements are universally applied to the appropriate vowels, whether it is only in positions where it is contrastive, or whether thickness is essentially part of the learning curve, which more practiced users will not incorporate - compare to vowel marks in Pitman shorthand, which are dropped finally and medially by experienced stenographers, and can be replaced by line positioning initially as well. If they are universally applied, then my initial assessment was wrong. If they are only applied in certain circumstances, then it's a bit more philosophical - try to figure out if there are any other heavy-line elements that crop up. Lastly, if those heavy-line features are only routinely used during the formative use of the shorthand, or if those elements are only rarely used in limited circumstances by mature users, it's probably more misleading to describe the system as heavy-line, and the few exceptions are best left to the details.

You can make a similar determination with Melin - is the thickening really intended to be used by mature stenographers, or is it a feature that is really designed to be dropped.VanIsaac_WS^contribs 17:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have good knowledge only about the Finnish adaptation of Gabelsberger, and there thickening is used a bit differently. But having read a few dozen German shorthand history books, I would say that thickening is essential also in the original Gabelsberger system. Thickening a consonant stroke is used to express vowel 'a' or diphthong 'au', which are both quite common in German, and I think this happens on all levels of shorthand use. On the other hand, both light-line and heavy-line sound a bit strange classifications to me, as that is not traditionally used as classifying criteria in German (or Swedish) shorthand books. Perhaps they are both a bit misleading, but I can't really say which one is less misleading. In Melin system, the use of thickening for double consonants can be dropped in fast writing, but then thickening can also be used for abbreviations. Perhaps light-line is more appropriate for Melin. --Ryhanen (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the author of the Duployan Unicode proposal, I am probably significantly biased by the idiosyncrasies of that system and its philosophy - it was deliberately designed as an exclusively light-line system. I don't patrol any of the shorthand pages, except Duployan, so if you feel have done your due diligence and conclude to simply eliminate the SHline property from those systems, I'm not going to know about it. I would advise posting a notice on the talk page so that you aren't just reverted, however. If a discussion does erupt over this, please let me know so I can see the conversation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems would be a good place to move this conversation if you want to get more consensus. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested

WikiProject Writing Systems is conducting a poll regarding its future goals, and we have identified you as a person with a vested interest in the future of that project. Whether you are a member of the WikiProject, a frequent contributor, or a passerby with an interest in the subject, we want your input as to the future emphasis that the Writing Systems project will take. Please take a moment to peruse the entries and add your comments where you have an opinion. You can visit the poll by clicking here, or on the project image, 書, on the right.

TfD deletion

Hello, Can you please restore the TfD you removed here. Other than a similarity of name and purpose, they are quite definitely separate templates as a simple visit to each of them will show. ClaretAsh 09:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin assistance to do a mainspace/template page swap

{{admin help}} I just got done making a bunch of redirects from the template namespace to the mainspace, when I realized that for consistency with every other Unicode chart in the project (see {{Unicode chart templates}}), I should have moved the mainspace pages to the template, and made transclusions in the mainspace. The articles are as follows:

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs (4E00–62FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs (6300–77FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 2 of 4

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs (7800–8CFF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs (8D00–9FFF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 4 of 4

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (20000–215FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (20000-215FF)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (21600–230FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (21600-230FF)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (23100–245FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (23100-245FF)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (24600–260FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (24600-260FF)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (26100–275FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (26100-275FF)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (27600–290FF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (27600-290FF)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (29100–2A6DF)}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension B (29100-2A6DF)

Much thanks, --VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, just realized that the Extension A, C, and D already have been moved. I can update the mainspace to a transclusion. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Turns out, C and D were both transcluded and redirected in upon themselves.

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C (2A700-2B73F)

{{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension D}} ↔ List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D (2B740-2B81F)

VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please check on {{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C (2A700-2B73F)}} and {{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D (2B740-2B81F)}} when it's all over and done with. No more changes, I swear! VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if you've been waiting 4 days for an admin to reply, but it may be because (as I did) those who have stopped by have left scratching their heads. Could you summarize exactly what you think needs to be moved from where / to where and why? Thanks.  7  05:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Each of the "List of" articles needs to be moved to the equivalent "Unicode chart" template, for consistency with the 200 some-odd other Unicode chart templates. The "List of" articles can then be replaced with a simple transclusion of the template. No links need to be fixed, no redirects should need to be created or modified. Just a simple move from article space to template space, with the redirects to article space switched to transclusions from template space. Sorry for the confusion. I was actually trying to do this in the middle of updating template:Unicode chart templates, and it was getting late, so my thoughts were a bit scattered, and I wasn't too concerned about getting this done quickly. It's worked the current way for at least a while, so it's just a maintenance move, and not that critical. Thanks for the response. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputed. Will explain later. -10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I dispute this change. The proposed outcome is not as straightforward as it looks. These Unicode chart pages have been swapped time and time again, especially the CJK charts. Originally content was in templates (as is proposed here again), then some templates were moved to a subpage-like pagename List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 (4E00-62FF) using slashes, and others to a straight [[List of..]] page. Most other charts, non CJK, indeed are in template space.

Some time ago the category of these charts was changed: from Category:Unicode chart templates into category:Unicode charts. That covers more.

They are too big to transclude more than one on a page, so that won't happen. There can be no big-overview page of, say, block B. That is why they are in mainspace by themselves.

Then there is this question to be answered: if a template is transcluded only once (or zero), should it stay a template? It can even be deleted for that reason, thereby preventing completeness of the set.

I am fine with these once or zero transcluded charts staying in mainspace. We can link to them, as in CJK Unified Ideographs, not lining to template space in an article. That is good. It is a compromise (all charts are in WP, only the transcludable ones in template space).

Other page moves I want to do is remove unnecassary additions to the title: e.g. List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension A (3400-4DBF) → List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension A because there is nothing to be disambiguated (block A is not partitioned. Only block B and block:CJK Unified Ideographs are). This is independent of the namespace, but I'll put it on hold for now.

Bad example, struck. This one is OK already. Need do research later on.-DePiep (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Second (third) thought: the example is good, struck the 2nd thought, and already performed the move since it didn't need a swap. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For sure, since there is no stable outcome we agree on, these moves shuold not be performed. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that there is functionality that could be added to these chart templates, and by segregating them in article space, we are not only denying the ability to incorporate new functionality to these particular charts, but we are denying users the opportunity to recognize that these most cumbersome of Unicode charts even can be altered through transclusion syntax.

As an example, we may want to limit display to a single Unicode column or range, or even highlight a glyph in the charts. This can be done with a transclusion from template space, and just plain can't from article space. Is there some way we can mark these templates, which will be transcluded into at least one "List of" article, as important templates that should not be deleted? I'm just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that we have a problem when we have an artificial bifurcation of Unicode charts on WP. Thoughts? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern. I remember creating a article page that only contained a big new template. Within 19 hrs, it was at AfD (skipping stub or development steps) [2]. I had to dicuss vehemently to save the page. Yet this could be the situation if we create a page with one of the seven partitions of block CJK B transcluded (and all seven cannot be on one page): a useless page in mainspace, someone can argue.

And of course there is the reverse situation. In the above AfD example: would the article be deleted, next step would be TfD because "the template is not transcluded once". Any which way, they would disappear both. So, if a template that is transcluded only once (or zero times), one cannot keep away the purists (who may no be receptable to our goal to keep the all the charts present somehow).

These two concerns explain my objection to the proposed move, and I accept the compromise situation (other charts are in template space correctly) to keep all ~200 charts available, "protected" against purist's arguments (even bots).

One way forward I can think of: let's start a centralised Discussion (or TfD) to propose "all Unicode charts are in template space, regardless of their usage". If this is fleshed out (and closed as a "All right, lets do that"), we have sound consensus to do this. (And maybe, step 2, "we allow article pages that only have a big template" so we don't have to link to Template-space). To be clear: I'd prefer such an outcome, but we need explicit consensus outside the two of us to prevent future disputes on this by others.

By the way, any nice example of mentioned functionality that would work nice with templates? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Moves today

FYI, in the CJK Extensions group, I have moved:

• List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension A (3400-4DBF) → List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension A
• List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C (2A700-2B73F) → List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C
• List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D (2B740-2B81F) → List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D

This is all within mainspace. I claim that this does not interfere or force anything with the main topic at hand, which is about moving between namespaces. I have also done some cleanup: rm double redirects, rm old template stuff from article pages (noincludes), rm transclusion of article into template space (twice; templates are now a redirect into article space), catsort. Of these 11 Extension pages, only CJK Ext A has its content in template space. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely concur that these moves are not coercive in any way as to the topic at hand, and welcome both the cleanup of redirects, as well as the removal of ranges from the single block names. Where do you suggest we hold the conversation about templates/articles/single transclusions, etc. to get a broader consensus? Do we want to do a full RfC? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

{{ec}Thanks. At Category talk:Unicode charts (nicely a cross-spaces platform)? And add a notification on multiple other pages. Maybe at TfD, that would generate a lot of traffic (though that introduces a Delete-atmosphere, hard to get rid of). (ec) As for RfC: elaborate route. Little experience with that. To be safe we could do the TfD and the notifications, not the Cat Talk page. -DePiep (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're both trying to straighten out a set of pages that seem to have suffered from some delayed maintenance, so I, for one, will welcome whatever we can do to make this clearer and simpler. I like the TfD/Cat talk, but would also like to post it at Writing Systems, because that's where the Unicode people tend to congregate. Maybe WP:WikiProject Templates would also be a good place to get some VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Where to discuss?. That page itself does not seem to do such conclusions. Notifications (invitations) will be put at WP:WS, Talk:Unicode, Talk:CJK Unified Ideographs, ... -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this well, could you neutralize the help-template here for the time being? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about neutralizing a help-template. No clue what "neutralize" means, no idea what a "help-template" is, no idea what "time" would be "being". I'm stumped. That having been said, the list of notification places looks good to me. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 17:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just saying "I don't understand" would do.

What I mean to say is: the template {{admin help}} is still active, and putting thisd in a help Category. Maybe some admin might take action without reading out progressed talk. So by "switching off" (or "neutralizing") the template, one might avert this risk. You could change it into {{tlp|admin help}}.

For now, I'll have to leave this topic for a little while. It is stable, and I'm back in a short time. Think days. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument. There are potential advantages of making the CJK charts templates, but on the other hand, as DePiep says, these pages have been moved and moved again more times than I can remember, so we should be very cautious before we move them again. This isn't the best place to be having this discussion, and once again I wish there was a central location for discussing Unicode-related issues. I think that there are enough Unicode-related articles, and probably enough editors interested in Unicode, for it to be worthwhile proposing a Unicode WikiProject (or at least a Unicode task force in WP Writing Systems). BabelStone (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Babelstone, I'd be glad to propose it at Writing Systems, but I honestly think that it's a small enough group to handle the Unicode pages without bifurcation, and it's likely to draw most of the active editors there, so we're not really going to gain much. I think I'd probably prefer just claiming Unicode pages in the name of Writing Systems, and letting the small cadre of editors there do their thing. The big positive I can see is being able to tag articles with a Unicode project might draw some contributors. I'll research working groups to see what that looks like, but I'll also start a conversation at WP:WikiProject Writing systems. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

UCS characters

Oops, your created {{Infobox UCS basic}} confused me, because now there are three Talk locations: TfD, /sandbox and the new /talk. This is very annoying and not productive, even talking at two locations is hard to follow, let alone changing code.
We could just propose improvements in the Talk & /Sandbox of the original {{UCS characters}}, not? It centralises, does not disturb the live template for the time being, and the history will be kept if the template stays in some form. If there is development, a closing admin will (have to) postpone closing esp. deleting.
For now, I'll copy your new code into the sandbox, and will discuss at Template talk:UCS characters. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

=Nice

Nice things you are doing with braille! -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Doug Flag

I see you have a draft in your userspace, do you have anything to do with the editor who created Doug Flag? Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 17:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as File:Japanese -Y- Braille.svg to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bharati braille

Hi,

Thanks for the Bharati braille article. I rearranged the template, though, since Bharati braille isn't really an abugida, and I'll try consolidating the sections of the article, since there's only one script involved. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Braille template is a bit unclear about whether it's the base script, or the braille incarnation. Russian, Hebrew, Bharati, etc. are definitely not Latin based, however. I'm working on the international braille section of the braille article, and I'll introduce a better demarcation for the Braille template. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Bharati is actually based on English braille—American English AFAICT. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the history, it was designed to be as compatible with English braille as possible in order to ease L2 reading either way, but it is not an imposition of English braille on Indic scripts, but their own adaptation of braille. The additional Indic consonants are not just English transliterations - eg. ṭha ≠ ṭ + h - but rather their own unique braille cells, in this case ṭha = English W. This is right in line with the unified international braille that was developed in the late 1800s, although they went a bit further in appropriating some of the English digraphs to Indic analogues. Like most of these braille systems (I love the Japanese braille to death), it's actually quite ingenious. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant the digraphs which were taken from English. (Are those also used in the UK?)

I think the template should be classified based on the braille alphabets themselves, not on the alphabets they transcribe. So, Japanese is an abugida, but Bharati is not. Maybe we can word that first line better? — kwami (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No doubt, categorization by the braille system is what we should be striving for. (cont. below) VanIsaac_WS^contribs

Maybe we can call that row Unified braille? But it is Latin-based (from the French alphabet, actually, as you can tell from the missing w). Greek and Russian braille are not based on the Greek and Russian alphabets, but on French/Latin-based braille. Korean is the exception here, as the sound values are independent of Latin; the couple resemblances are probably just coincidence.

I don't see any reason to separate Greek, Russian, and Bharati from English and the rest: the difference is not in the braille, but in the national script of where the braille is used, which is not what the template is about. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the Latin script brailles have an alphabetcial principle of unification (letters stay the same, no matter what the sound), and the non-Latin script brailles are sound-based, often with English transliteration as the target. I think there is a distinct difference between the two sets, I just don't know exactly how to express it in a couple words. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got a point. But I think they're based on standard romanization rather than on English sound-alikes. So you could argue the letters stay the same no matter what the sound there too, it's just that there's no one-to-one correspondence with other scripts so the assignment is based on romanization instead. The braille isn't arranged in numerical order the way the original was. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the French article has additional letters (diacritics, digraphs, etc.) from quite a few languages. If we don't already, it would be nice to copy that over.

That is a nice collection they have over there.

PS, Have you put the {{Braille Cell}} template to the test yet? I'd like some feedback on improving input parameters. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've used it a few times. Seems to work fine. Once I input a letter, and a couple times numbers, and got what I intended. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, while I disagree that there is any relevant inherent difference in the braille itself between French and Greek, and would prefer to keep them together so as to not mislead the reader into thinking that there is (they will presumably assume there is if we list them separately), I do agree that "Latin-based" is too ambiguous to be helpful in conveying this. Does Unified braille seem a reasonable label to you? — kwami (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's definitely get rid of "Latin-based", it's just wrong. Other distinctions are a matter of opinion. I think it's a valid distinction, but that's not yet consensus. I'll see if we can get some more voices on Writing Systems. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay.

Yeah, according to the ref we have in the linked article,[3] k is k, kh is c, g is g, and ng is lowered g. That's about the degree of adaptation you get with the Latin script, say with pinyin. It would be better to confirm with the entire alphabet, but I'm assuming the first row is representative.

You might also write to Friedrich-Willhelms University. — kwami (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I have a feedback comment on the braille generator: is there an option to output Unicode rather than graphics? — kwami (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Should be easy enough to pull off. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 05:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how accessible the two outputs would be to the blind.

As for your earlier comment, yeah, I was quite taken when I set up a chart of Japanese braille and realized it was an abugida. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I got the text output done last night, although I'm going to be doing a couple of tweaks today. The Korean is actually quite neat too, how the initial/final consonant forms bring a kind of order to the syllabic system, paralleling the form of Hangul. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, nice. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait till you see what I've got cooking up for Korean. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You moved Tibetan in the table template, referring to the talk page. But I can't find the talk page. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got called away for a game of golf. I'm going to put it one template talk:Braille right now. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)