User talk:JO753

AfD nomination of Nooalf
An editor has nominated Nooalf, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. - Bobet 07:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that no matter how great you think your new spelling reform proposal is, Wikipedia isn't a place to document novel original concepts, it's a place to document things that are already notable. If your proposal gets widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources (ie. not your personal website or your message board postings), then information about it can be added (preferably not by someone with such a clear conflict of interest about the subject). Until then, I will keep reverting your edits, sorry. - Bobet 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please read my previous comment, it already answers your questions. Read Attribution for more information, and understand that your personal websites aren't reliable sources. If you want to edit the English spelling reform article to be more balanced, great, but do it in a way that isn't self-promotional in nature, and cite sources that have nothing to do with your website. Thanks. - Bobet 09:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you keep thinking I've some interest in either the english spelling reform or nooalf. Not everyone here only edits pages that they've a vested interest in. I revert your edits, because they go against wikipedia's core policies (namely, they're unverifiable from reliable sources and original research). And your comment "I tried many times to get some press coverage at major American TV & newspapers with no success. They are too busy with real news, such as Brittany Spears, whacko shooters, Iraq, the latest diet fads etc." indicates that you understand the problem with the information you're trying to add. Wikipedia isn't a primary source, if nooalf isn't written about, then it's not suitable here, whether you think it's fair or not. And please leave your comments on my talk page instead of my user page in the future. Thanks. - Bobet 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Nooalf page, are you involved? Because you have a minor issue, "IPA" is not "International Pronunciation Alphabet", but International Phonetic Alphabet. - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Is it a parody? - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange, it might be worth you noting on the site that it isn't intended as a replacement for English spelling, but rather U.S. English spelling. - Francis Tyers · 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Noticeable with the first example, "alien", which I pronounce /eɪliən/ whereas your pronounciation would be something like /eɪliɪn/. - Francis Tyers · 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nooalf is a 100% phonetic English-based international spelling system. There are no rules besides 1 letter = 1 sound, so children and foriegners can learn it in a month."


 * In case this is a genuine mistake, and not simply a "proof of problem", "foreigner" is spelt (or spelled as you may prefer) with "ei" not "ie". This is one of the circumstances where the addage "i before e except after c" does not hold. - Francis Tyers · 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am using IPA in Unicode, I am not using a particular font (this is a different issue). If you wish to be able to read IPA on your computer, you could try downloading Code 2000 (google it), which is a free font with wide support for Unicode 4.0.

So what you are saying is that a vowel may be written how it is pronounced? So that there may be several alternative spellings of a word? Btw, what was behind your choice of X to represent /ð/ instead of say ð or þ? I would have thought ð for /ð/ and þ or even θ for /θ/ would have made more sense &mdash; all three characters are already in wide use, are in use in other related languages, used, /uːst/ to be used, /uːzd/ in English, and are easily accessible via even single byte character sets. - Francis Tyers · 07:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I tried to read the /lɔdʒɪk/ page, but gave up because of the combination of colour scheme and orthography made my brain hurt (no offence, I really did try). You might try providing a "high contrast" or at least less garish version for those of us who are visually impaired. - Francis Tyers · 07:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The lime green on light grey text (especially with the white/grey background) is almost impossible for me to read. The orange on light grey is slightly easier, but still doesn't make for a fun time. The light blue on light grey is also quite difficult &mdash; although the fact that the text is written in the US standard orthography makes things easier.


 * Come to think of it, if I turn off the styles the page is much easier to read. You might like to provide a link to this "unstyled", high contrast version for those of us who can't read lime green text on a light grey/white pebbled background. Also the main page is not valid HTML. - Francis Tyers · 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Black on white is much easier. And about Microsoft, I probably agree, but its more like, make old stuff not work, make new stuff not work and make standard stuff non-standard :) - Francis Tyers · 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't see a contact option on the front page of your website, and I wasn't going to wade through pages and pages of it, so I'll just post here. You state: "These 34 letters are all you need to spell the entire English vocabulary, plus most words in most other languages." I'm afraid that is utter fantasy. There are several sounds of English which your alphabet doesn't cover at all, and your cross-linguistic knowledge must be very poor if you think that it covers most words in many other languages. Every language I can think of has numerous sounds that your alphabet doesn't include. On top of that, what sounds there are are very biased towards English, such as an e-type character for /i/. So apparently your "you can already read it" claim is only for English speakers! Honestly, I'd go back to the drawing board if I were you. Salopian (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And as for "The IPA was made in an era when sound recording was not a practical matter for linguists. Today, transcribing the odd vocalizations of remote tribes is not neccassary, and the entire activity is probably near extinction." Wow, talk about contradictory and totally false. Salopian (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Salopian. Sorry for not replying till now. It's a good idea to know what you are talking about before you critisize something. Read the LoJIK page at nooalf.com.JO 753 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spelling reform article
Hello again. I really don't know enough about spelling reform to definitively evaluate the degree to which the article is biased toward one side or another. Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that all significant views be represented "fairly and without bias", where the significance of a view is determined by the presence or absence of reliable sources that advance it. I would assume that proponents of spelling reform constitute a minority of the relevant academic community ... as such, their views should be presented as that of a minority. Whether the article does that to an appropriate or inappropriate degree, I cannot say without actually researching the topic (about which I know almost nothing)

If you have any specific issues or suggestions regarding the improvement of the article, you may find it more productive to contact members of one of the subprojects of WikiProject Linguistics (or to post on one of the project talk pages). If you have any general questions or if there is any other matter with which I could try to help you, please feel free to let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I replied on the article talk page. - Francis Tyers · 08:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-experts editing
Hi. Just a note after seeing your last comment at User_talk:Francis_Tyers about "people who dont know much about a subject making editorial decisions".

After a lot of editing, I've come to the conclusion that this isn't a fatal flaw. It just means that while writing a good article, you have to teach those who are less-expert.

This is necessary because good articles provide lots of references for verifiability, and because a lot of experts in whatever field are not necessarily any good at writing articles.

If someone wants to publish a monologue, they can do that in their blog. If someone wants to document something in Wikipedia, they should be able to provide sourced and to explain to others why their account is correct. Gronky 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Degeneration
I am flattered that you had such an impression of me, but I am not really a "higher up editor". I am an administrator, but that's only a technical status that allows editors to delete pages, block users, and protect pages.

As far as I know, the rate of increase of the number of articles exceeds the rate of increase of the number of active editors. Thus, it is almost inevitable that average article quality may start to suffer. However, that's an issue for which I can think of no simple solution. If you perceive that certain problems are the direct result of particular policies, I would encourage you to raise your concerns on those policy talk pages so that they may be modified as appropriate. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nooalf" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nooalf&redirect=no Nooalf] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jalen Folf  (talk)  09:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)