User talk:David deterding

Invitation to improve the "Singlish" article
Hello, I assume you're the David Deterding who is the author of Singapore English (2007). The article "Singlish" (and possibly "Singlish vocabulary" too) is in need of a subject expert to ensure that its content is factually correct and that it is properly referenced (there are "[citation needed]" tags everywhere!). Would this be something that you'd like to take on? Let me know if you need any advice about formatting articles. Also, if you haven't already done so, you may want to consider joining the SGpedian community. (You can reply here – I'll watch this page.) &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jack. Yes, I am the author of Singapore English, published by EUP. Let me know if you think any of my changes can be improved -- I have tried to refer to a wide range of materials, not just my own, though obviously I am most familiar with my own work. You might note that I have not commented my changes, because there are just too many of them (and lots, lots more to come), and commenting each one would not be helpful. (It would also slow me down rather a lot.) I'll have a go at the Singlish vocabulary article as well, but it will take a bit of time. Let me see if I can do a reasonable job on the main Singlish page.  Do you know how to remove a section?  I have moved all the 'Notes' to the 'References' section, so the former is now empty. David Deterding, 3 February 2008.

Hi, David. Well, I probably won't be able to comment on the correctness or otherwise of any factual changes – I don't have any background in linguistics. But I'll have a look anyway when I have some time (am working on a PhD in law in the UK at the moment!). Yes, do concentrate on the "Singlish" article first; I suspect "Singlish vocabulary" will need quite an overhaul. I would suggest that you do put some brief comments in the edit summary if you can, even if it is just to say "Added references", "Minor rephrasing" or "Corrected information". This enables other editors to know what changes have been made. (Also, vandalism tends to be left uncommented.) You may wish to put a comment on the talk page of the article explaining any potentially contentious changes.

To remove the empty "Notes" section, delete the " ==Notes== " text. However, I would suggest that you place the " " template back under "Notes". According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, footnotes generally go into the "Notes" section, while "References" contains a bulleted list of the most important works that were used in constructing the article and cited therein: see "Layout". For referencing works, you may want to use the citation, cite book and cite web templates – click on the template names for more information on how they work. For instance, typing " " yields "". The use of such templates aims to ensure that citations are uniform across Wikipedia, but they are optional. Finally, to make your user name and the date appear automatically after messages, type four tildes (" ~ "). &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll change it back again. I was basing my usage on how it was done int Estuary English page. But maybe they got it wrong. You've lost me with the David deterding (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC) usage -- I've no idea what you mean. David, 3 Feb 2008.

If you stick around you'll get used to the formatting style. I'm still learning all the time. Manual of Style and its associated pages are a good place to start if there are formatting issues you're not sure about. Are you confused regarding the bit in my message about signing and dating your postings? Well, it was just a tip to say that instead of typing your name (or username) and the date and time manually after your messages, you can just do so like this:


 * This is text of my message. ~

Wikipedia then automatically replaces the four tildes with your username and the current date and time. Also, to distinguish your postings from other people's, it is customary to indent the text of your messages where necessary. For instance, in this conversation we're having, since I started off the chat I didn't use any indenting, so you could indent your replies by one tab stop. You do this by adding a colon before each paragraph, like this:


 * :This text is indented by one tab stop.
 * ::This text is indented by two tab stops. Adding more colons at the start of each paragraph increases the number of tab stops the text is indented by.

By the way, if I'm providing you with a bit too much information than you need at the moment, just say so and I'll stop! &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm sure I violate lots of aspects of the Wikipedia style recommendations, but so what? As I understand it, the whole point of Wikipedia (and its underlying Randian origins) is to let people contribute without worrying too much about rules.

Let's just see if we can get the page OK. I think consonants section is now just about OK, as I've taken out some of the stranger things and inserted some key references. I'll try to fix vowels next, and then see what I can do with the rest. I might leave the socio parts for someone else to fix. David deterding (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PIE-road-sign.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:PIE-road-sign.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my image. I created it (using Paint), and it is included on page 79 of my book "Singapore English" (published by EUP). Surely I own the copyright? Doesn't this mean I can put it on Wikipedia if I choose? I cannot for the life of me work out how I am supposed to do this. What do I have to do to make the image freely usable?David deterding (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, David. Sorry for being nosy (I'm still watching this page). When you upload an image on to Wikipedia, you also need to add an image copyright tag to it. Untagged images get flagged automatically, as you have seen. Generally, images can only be uploaded if the copyright owner freely licenses them for use by others. This means that other people are entitled to download and modify them for their own purposes, as well as to use them for commercial purposes. If you are happy with this, you can add one or more of the following copyright tags to the image description page: The usual practice is to create a section called "Licence" or "Licensing information" after the description of the image and to put the tag in it, like this:
 * attribution – other people may use the image for any purpose as long as they attribute it to you.
 * cc-by-3.0 or cc-by-sa-3.0 – these are Creative Commons licences. Click on the link for more information.
 * GFDL-self – this is a GNU Free Documentation License. Click on the link for more information.


 * ==Licensing information==

In fact, if you are agreeable to licensing the image under one of the above licences, it can be transferred over to the Wikimedia Commons, which is a repository of freely-accessible media. Images that are stored in the Commons can be used in articles in Wikipedia in the usual way.

If you would prefer not to permit commercial reuse of the original, high-quality image, an alternative is to upload and license a smaller, lower-resolution version. Anyway, if you need further help with this, let me know. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, how about we go for the "attibution" option -- anyone can use the image as long as they attribute its origin. But I don't know how to do that -- can you help me out? I tried to work out how to do it but gave up.
 * Actually, I have a few more images that could be used, and I am quite happy to give them away. But I don't know how to do it. David deterding (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Attribution tag to "Image:PIE-road-sign.jpg" and deleted the copyright warning tag. I also tweaked the image information slightly. Go to the image description page and click on "Edit this page" to see what I did. Since you licensed the image under the Attribution tag, I also moved it to the Wikimedia Commons: see "Image:PIEroadsign-Singapore-20060727.jpg". If you have other images that you want to freely license to Wikipedia, you may want to consider registering as a member of the Commons and uploading the images directly there. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, that's fine. I've added the 'danger -- keep out' sign to the Singlish page -- I hope I got the copyright assignation correct this time. (I thought it might add some colour to the page, even if it is not strictly about Singlish.)


 * I have done what I can to provide extensive references to the Singlish page and correct some of the contents. Can you get the warning messages at the top removed?


 * I'm afraid I still think there are lots and lots of problems with the page; for example, the discussion of an East Coast accent from Siglap to Katong does not make any sense, and I don't see the point of mentioning ACS, MGS, RGS etc -- these schools really have no relevance for Singlish. Overall, I would give the page a grade of C; but I am reluctant to do any more work on it, as that would involve removing or correcting rather a lot of contributions by other people.


 * The Singlish vocabulary page is even worse, I'm afraid. I don't know where most of these items come from, and some really important words are missing, such as 'ang pow' (red-envelope) and 'chim' (profound).  But I will have to leave that up to someone else to fix. I have already spent far too long on this, and I have classes to prepare and research to complete.David deterding (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you've discovered how addictive Wikipedia is. In my view, if you think the "Singlish" article needs corrections you should be bold and make them, even if it means removing material that other people have put in. One of the reasons why I contribute to Wikipedia is because, like it or not, it's widely used as an information source (hopefully not the only one!). I'd therefore like it to be accurate, at least on the subjects that I'm interested in. You're probably more qualified than anyone else who has worked on the article before – why not stick around and dip in from time to time to make corrections? In the meantime, I'll remove the tags at the top of the article. Yes, "Singlish vocabulary" is a mess. It's on my watchlist but I haven't really bothered to make any edits yet. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

vowels
Hi David,

Regarding your recent vowel/vocoid paragraph, are and  considered phonological vowels in Serbian? Are and  in buy and cow considered vocoids but not vowels in English?

(Then I'd wonder about as a vowel in Nuxalk, but that might not be answerable...)

Thanks, kwami (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kwami,

I can't answer for vowels/vocoids in Serbian. Of course, in English /l/ and /n/ can be syllabic, but they still tend to to occur on the edges of syllables so are usually regarded as consonants rather than vowels. How about Serbian /r/? Is it usually on the edge of a syllable? Or is it always the nucleus? If the latter, I guess it is a vowel.

I stayed away from [l] and [r] because [j] and [w] are rather more straightforward.

At the end of syllables, such as in buy and cow -- well, that depends on whether you believe in diphthongs or not in English, as buy can be or  depending on how you analyse it, and cow can be  or ; and that partly depends on whether you are looking at American English or British English. (This is getting a bit far from the original issue, though I could elaborate if you want.)

As for Nuxalk -- that is getting a long way from my expertise. I think that, in linguistic categorisation, there are always marginal cases (as there are in all types of categorisation); but the vowel/vocoid distinction is still useful. And it is fairly standard, with an excellent heritage, from Kenneth Pike to John Laver.

Hope this helps. David deterding (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was just wondering if it was an absolute definition, or just something that worked in English. kwami (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, basically, a semivowel is a vocoid, but an approximant is a contoid? kwami (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

John Laver's book is not about English; and as I understand it, Kenneth Pike was not talking about English either. (I have to admit that I have not read too much of Pike's stuff.) So these definitions should work well for all languages. [j] and [w] are just examples, and other sounds might work better or worse in other languages. But the idea that the phonetic and phonological definition of 'vowel' comes up with different results seems fairly solid; and it seems best to use English examples when we are writing in English. David deterding (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you create an article about a Colloquial English called "Brulish/Brunglish" (brunei-english)?
I really like your recent created article "Bruneian English" :), you did a good job. I've got some sources to help you start http://dreamideoyo.livejournal.com/15993.html?title=Let's%20Bastardize%20some%20English!&hashtags= and you could find more sources for Brulish/Brunglish by typing Brulish Brunei on Google search :) Younlo9098 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Brulish of Brunglish. If you want to create your own page, go ahead. I will stick with describing Brunei English (or 'Bruneian English' as a Wikipedia editor changed it to).David deterding (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this categorical name?
Do you mean Bruneian English as against Brunei English? I prefer the latter; but never mind. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.David deterding (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you, you should inform SamX to change it to "Brunei", hence it is correct I believe. 41.130.6.116 (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think "Recognised" is appropriate to describe English on the info-box for Brunei's Wikipedia article? SirAlexOreo (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know what the categories mean. If 'recognised' means something to whoever put it there, so be it. I think the bigger problem is the omission of minority languages such as Tutong, Dusun and Murut. But what is listed on the Brunei main page is not my business.David deterding (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
SamX‧☎‧✎ 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Danger-keep-out-sign.jpg


The file File:Danger-keep-out-sign.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)