User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 7

removal of picture of Maynard Smith
Thanks for your effort to compensate for the removal of photo of JMS. The removal was a massive error by Wikimedia Commons as full permission to use was received by them... See below. If you have any influence can you help to get the Maynard Smith photo reinstated. This is VERY frustrating to say the least. Best wishes --HowieKor (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

From:  Date: 21 June 2012 11:00:49 GMT+01:0 To: 

Subject: Ticket number 2012052310010548

To Whom It May Concern I hereby affirm that Web of Stories Ltd (“WoS”) is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image of John Maynard Smith. WoS agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). “WoS” acknowledge that by doing so “WoS” grants anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. “WoS” is aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. “WoS” is aware that “WoS” always retain copyright of this work, and retains the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by “WoS”. “WoS” is aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and “WoS” reserves the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. “WoS” acknowledges that “WoS” cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Anne Greenwood Group Managing Director Web of Stories Ltd Science Navigation Group Middlesex House 34-42 Cleveland Street London W1T 4LB Date 21 June 2012


 * Sorry, it's not something I know much about. I've a little experience of modern copyright, fair-use and the like but no experience of OTRS and the like, and spend very little time on Commons.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved and restored now by the looks of it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Tol
Why would you try to speedy delete Template:Tol? I don't understand. I hope we can resolve this without a big fuss. Yours aye, Buaidh  19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As always it's best to discuss this at the relevant discussion page.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The merits of this template seem to have little to do with your actions. Perhaps we should discuss this offline.   Buaidh  21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:LI redo
Substituting Template:Ll renders a simple template unintelligible. Yours aye, Buaidh  19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. The thread is Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. Thank you.

See talk:cross product for what I mean (I had to include you by WP:ANI guidelines, sorry...)

F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 23:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification; commented.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are Loblolly?
You added comment to a section on abusive behavior by user Loblolly. Unless you are the same person, please put the remark where it really belongs. P0M (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't see the previous message. So if you meant to comment on the complaint lodged against Loblolly, who were you painting as the bad guy? It seemed to me you were saying that the complaint against Loblolly is not well motivated.P0M (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was commenting on User:Hublolly; I previously encountered him on Talk:Cross product.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bloke (word)
I have nominated Bloke (word) for deletion at Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) per my close at Talk:Bloke, a discussion in which you participated. Cunard (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan Disambiguation
Hi John! I noticed you re-inserted the quotation marks that make the article in the disambiguation page appear to confer an air of fictionality to the topic rather than a real one: ie, namely that the PRC does make a sovereign claim over Taiwan, even if it is a contested claim. Please don't put the quotation marks back .. if I have to I will go digging through the Wiki: style guides for the guidance on it, but in general quotation marks imparting an air of areality to an article are ill-advised. Thanks. --—  r obbie  page talk 21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China redirect
Hi John! Ok you can delete the comments I made, but I still question the validity of redirection from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan". Although delete the redirection means leaving less information on that page, I would suggest the delete in order to prevent Wikipedia from misleading.Thank you. Thegrenadier (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I replied already at Talk:Republic of China, and it would be better to discuss this on that page.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bite marks
Dear Mr. Blackburn,

I wanted to clear up something that you may not have realized at the time. When you hatted my pro and con list, I did not realize it was still there. All I saw was the notice "this discussion is closed". I really thought that you deleted all my arguments. Looking back, it was kind of stupid of me to think that but after reading don't bite the newbies I now feel that it was not all my fault. May I suggest that advising me to move it to my user space could have been a better solution? In addition, be advised that long exposure to the harsh wind conditions on wikipeak does tend to turn contributers into police officers. And you might want to give Axel Boldt's short burnout prevention advice a second read. All in all, I would say you played a significant role in blocking my proposal for someone who does not devote much of his time to contributing to mathematical articles. Carrying a mathematician userbox would suggest you may be able to direct some energy to constructive effort in that field.

Kind Regards,

Yaniv256 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I am very aware of WP:Don't bite the newbies. Two things about it. First that page, in fact its very title, is intended to carry a particular meaning: don't be hostile to new editors. But that is a policy that should be followed anyway with all editors: criticise the edit, constructively if possible, not the editor. Focus on what they've written, or done, on an article or talk page. In my ANI post I was careful to do this, as on your talk page. Second the concessions to new editors only go so far. When they have made several hundred edits, as you have, and are quoting policies and running discussions, they are no longer new editors.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong library
Please engage in the talk page discussion. Your reasoning for this revert is not clear to me, and the edit summary doesn't address my concern that Hong Kong is being misrepresented as an independent country. Shrigley (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like he has a point, John. Yaniv256 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied already on the article talk page. If you feel you have anything to contribute that is the best place.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you promise not to charge me with wp:hound if I do? Yaniv256 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not in the habit of making such promises. I advise you to participate in topics that you have an interest or expertise in: you will find you are better able to do so and your contributions will be better appreciated.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But then it cannot be a WP:PA of me to suggest you keep to your own advice? Yaniv256 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My advice was well meant and freely given; it is up to you whether you follow it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though it does seem like you tried to trick me into breaking WP:Hound, I'll assume good faith and accept your advice. Shrigley, don't mind us, his edit is an obvious breach of WP:NPOV, just revert it and go on your merry way. Yaniv256 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia?
Sorry but I disagree it is trivia. The Olympics is a notable sporting event, and part of the event was held in Newcastle.

1. In 1927 the Tyne Bridge was opened. significant and notable event and fact.

2. In 2012 the olympic games, a "significant and notable" event, was partly staged in Newcastle, with the stadium St. James park hosting 9 matches. a significant and notable fact.

To me all the above are significant and notable and in the context of Newcastle the article.

So where is the "insignificant" "did you know" e.g. the "did you know" you can buy "this type of ice lollys at Freds the corner shop?", or the did you know there is a bump in the road on Westgate road that hasn't been fixed by the council?

I cant see any trivia at all with regards to the Olympics being staged in Newcastle. All I see is a notable sporting event that was partly staged in Newcastle.

Can you define trivia? Jarra78 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese redirects
Hi, can I ask a technical question please. As several other editors I've been keeping an eye on User:Kauffner's editing of redirects within the context of this User's bulk undiscussed, I see that you've just corrected a series of his redirect edits. Could you just explain to me the technical difference here? (i) I take it that in terms of a redirect edit creating history to "lock" an undiscussed move thereby and preventing other Users reverting there is actually no difference between a manual category and a template? (ii) Otherwise what is the advantage/significance of the template in this case? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (cur | prev) 00:56, 18 August 2012‎ JohnBlackburne (talk | contribs)‎ . . (52 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (use template for category) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:59, 17 August 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (82 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 05:31, 24 July 2011‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (moved Ngô Quang Trưởng to Ngo Quang Truong over redirect: Move Vietnamese name to non-diacritical form per discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, Britannica, WP:UE, and official use by the Vietnam News Agency.)
 * The templates are appropriate as they add the redirects to the category and the non-printworthy category: see the template or the category documentation. I don't think my edits lock the redirect to prevent a move as the first edit, i.e. adding the category, had already done so. If they are locked and need moving an admin can assist.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi John thanks. (i) No, for sure they don't lock redirects in this case as they were already locked, but for future reference I understand from above that adding a template would therefore also lock a redirect. (ii) thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputed status of Gibraltar
Please remember that you can only undo contributions with a clear and justifiable evidence that the source used are not reliables. Juanmatorres75 09:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Disputed status of Gibraltar
Please remember that you can only undo contributions with a clear and substantiated evidence that the source used are not reliables.--Juanmatorres75 10:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

See also links
I do understand and appreciate your position on excessive See also links. While I feel you have a valid point, I think the extreme interrelatedness of regional geography and history require easy access to information about related subjects and adjacent regions. This is particularly true of North America. That has been my motivation for creating various templates. I realize that you consider these templates superfluous and unnecessary, but I respectfully disagree. I hope you will at least understand my position. Yours aye, Buaidh  15:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Interwiki links order
Sorry, I didn't realize that English Wikipedia has a special system for sorting interwiki. I have reverted my edit. Regards.-- Avocato  (talk)  11:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

St James' Park
I do think you have made a mistake since the official name of the stadium is Sports Direct Arena? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwoodruff1 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See the article talk page, especially the last discussion there. If you want to raise it again the talk page is the proper place, though I can't see consensus changing so much so soon after that discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of link to NCLab on Spline interpolation page
Hello, my name is Pavel Solin. NCLab is a free cloud computing platform where students (and others) can clone and run many numerical worksheets including spline interpolation. Could you please return the link to the page? The link just below is to the Holistic Numerical Methods Institute which does basically the same -- well, they offer the methods for download, NCLab allows users to run the on the cloud through the web browser. I think that it deserves to be there. Thank you for taking care of Wikipedia, I do mean to contribute to it with valuable information. PavelSolin (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of link to NCLab from Runge-Kutta methods page
Hello, please do not delete my links hastily. As I explained in the previous answer, NCLab is a valuable resource for students (and others) where they can run numerical methods, including Runge-Kutta methods, on the cloud. Existing links on that Wikipedia page include the Holistic Numerical Methods Institute that only offers downloads of these methods. If having HNMI is OK, I do not understand why having NCLab should be a problem. Thank you. PavelSolin (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:ELNO in particular Number 13. A link should relate directly to the subject. The link you added was to a general site. Further by adding it across multiple pages at once you are spamming. It is hardly ever a good idea to add the same link to multiple pages, it is unlikely to be appropriate to all and suggests the editor doing so is more interested in promoting the linked site than improving the articles.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Is it OK if I add links that lead directly to the numerical methods, for example to the Runge-Kutta method? I understand that perhaps link to NCLab is too generic, I will not add it anymore. PavelSolin (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, please do not go around adding links to your web site to multiple articles. I see from the history of NCLab that you are a major contributor to the article and it seems to the site, and so are not the best person to assess whether the site should be linked from multiple articles. I note also that the site requires login (or at least I am unable to access it without logging in), so should not be added by WP:ELNO #6.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, just to clarify, Python is the sixth most popular programming language, so it is not "some strange language" as you say. It seems inconsistent that you do not delete other external links to programs but you are consistently deleting the links that I post. The login to NCLab is free and NCLab is used by thousands of free users. Creating an account is needed so that everyone can have their own files stored in the cloud. This is not possible without authentication. Could you please return the link to the Fourier series program to the Fourier series page? Thank you, PavelSolin (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See again WP:ELNO, in particular number 6 which says one should generally avoid "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". On the other points a page of source code tells readers nothing about the subject. Python is strange to me as I did not recognise it, and I'm a computer programmer. To the 99% of readers who don't program for a living it would be even less accessible. Finally I should reiterate it is almost always wrong to be adding links to a site you are associated with or affiliated with.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you are the first computer programmer I met who does not know about Python. No hard feelings but visit Python (programming language) and inform yourself. We are working on allowing people to run programs without login, hope that this will satisfy you. Respectfully. PavelSolin (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TfD deletion notices in timed templates
I noticed that you are unaware of why the TfD notice in Template:Cite_quick has been set to "noinclude" for the transcluded template. In templates whose performance is based on timing tests, then the TfD notice interrupts the total timing and makes it more difficult to improve and test the template. For that reason, in templates which have timed performance, then the TfD notice should be hidden within "&lt;noinclude>...&lt;/noinclude>" where the noinclude'd text has little effect on template speed. Because not many templates have been designed for fast speed, then many others editors are likely unaware of the need for the noinclude tag. If you have any other questions, ask here, and I will check back. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The template is included in no articles so the notice has no effect on content or the performance of articles. While it's up for discussion the notice should be there: it can be disabled but that's only necessary for templates included in articles, especially those that appear many times. But even there it's a judgement call: the need to keep articles tidy should be balanced against the need to make sure editors of articles that will be impacted if the template is deleted are made aware of the deletion process. The notice also makes sure editors are aware it is up for deletion so should not be used – better to wait for the outcome of the deletion process.
 * If you want to test it then userfy it, and any content you want to test, then you can do what you like with it. You should have done this anyway after the last TfD on Fcite, Cite fast etc., rather than creating another similar template in main space that you and others start adding to articles. Done in user space it would be much safer from deletion and from accidental inclusion in main space. But now it's up for deletion, the notice properly informs editors of this, and ensures it's unlikely to be included in articles inadvertently.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Your recent reversion breaks all the templates at the bottom of the article. I am not familiar with the complexities of templates, but I can certainly see when something isn't working properly. If you have an understanding of this stuff, please do what you can to fix the article. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem was the template that 'fixed' it, Cite quick, is a badly broken template that should not have been created per a recent TfD decision and is up for deletion. It should therefore not be added to articles: even if it allows the article to load it will break numerous references and then will only require someone to remove it if as likely it's deleted after the discussion, which will be lot more work and a lot more disruptive if the article is edited in the interim.
 * The problem is that the article is far too long: it appears on Special:Longpages which means it's in the top 0.005% of non-list articles by length, and is far too long by any reasonable standard. It needs someone familiar with the topic to go through and pare back the content to a more reasonable length. This can be done quickly if sections are identified that can be moved to sub-articles.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this was already done several years ago. Barack Obama is written in summary style, with several dozen sub-articles. Trying to pare it down even more will be extraordinarily difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many things that can be done. More summary articles. Move more content to them. Pare back duplicate content. Edit what's there for length. The latter's probably the least feasible: it's hard to do and it will do the least to solve the problem with references. But all the others are in theory straightforward once such content's identified.
 * It's also worth pointing out that there will be a technical solution soon: The Lua scripting extension, Scributno is currently being tested and integrated into MediaWiki (it's already running on MediaWiki and test2). This will mean templates can be rewritten to run much faster without breaking them or compromising functionality, so should deal with the template limit and performance problems. But Barack Obama is still far too long an article and that needs to be addressed.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Obama article at ANI
An incident report has been filed, at WP:ANI, in which you are mentioned. See this entry at ANI. This is just a notice, so feel free to ignore it or delete this message if you wish. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the animation on Corner Reflector, November 2012
Hello, thanks for your efforts for improving the wikipedia's standards. You have removed a link I have included for the Corner reflector topic. As you can see in the link, the video shows the animation of working principles of the corner reflector and I believe it is enhancing the topic by visual aid. I have checked the linking guidelines and there is no absolute restriction on YouTube videos unless there is a copyright issue. Since I have generated the videos and publish them for educational purposes, there is no copyright issue and it is open for everyone. So, I want to make sure that I am not making a mistake by linking the video to the wikipedia site. Thanks. Meyavuz (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you added the link it wasn't working – it said 'video being processed' or something like that. Looking at it now though I can't see it's really helpful as it's unclear what it's showing. But you should not be adding them anyway: going around adding links to articles as you've been doing is considered link spam and is almost always a bad idea. Don't come to WP just adding links, especially not to content you've created whether it's a blog, to art/diagrams or to videos. Adding such links can be considered disruptive and can get you blocked.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User essay quote
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen it before. I think it trumps anything else said so far. Would you mind if I wrapped the quote in xt for visual distinctiveness? &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem – I don't quote things so often so am not that familiar with the formatting options.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Me neither - as a result I've been compiling a cheatsheet for stuff like that. &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Kitteth


Waffle (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Speedy deletion declined: New quantum theory
Hello JohnBlackburne. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of New quantum theory, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: permission claimed on talk page with OTRS ticket number. I am just making a few checks before taking it to AfD as OR. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of ToH external link
Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia, so please excuse any inadvertent transgressions. I checked the list of reasons that external links are rejected and can't see which one you might be citing. There are animations in the main article for the 3-peg case. This link gives an animation for the more general case, compatible with the assumed optimal number of moves. I doubt you had time to look at the site, so assume it was an editorial/philosophical objection. Is there a way I could edit it to make it acceptable? WebMonkTowers (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the article doesn't need links to implementations of the puzzle, whether the default one or variations. Because if one is added then why not another, and another? You end up with something like this older version:, with a long list of random links of trivial examples and variations, often requiring programming skill or special software to work. The particular WP:ELNO is the first: such links do not provide a unique resource; it may seem so until you review the many other links that were in the article and that have been removed since. I would also point out that it is almost always inappropriate to come to WP just to add links, to one article or many. This is especially true of linking to your own work, such as your own web site. See WP:SPAM and WP:COI for relevant guidelines.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the value of this link is what it claims, ie not the general solution (NOR claimed but not proved in the referenced site Tech page) but a Stewart-Frame compatible solution animation. This can be checked by evaluating the SF solution number of moves and as the site says 'count along'. Wikipedia is full of GIF's and animated GIF's which bring algorithms alive. This is too complex to do as a GIF, hence the reference. We don't particularly mind if the reference is moved from the main article to just 'External links'.

Contemplating animations of instances of actual solutions provides amusement for those mildly interested (How can that disc move there?) and a source of insight for those of a more mathematical nature - this is a fundamental benefit of an online resource.

Specifically addressing your concerns:

the link is not to an implementation but to an animation (see previous para). If you want to change the redirect to the animation page directly, feel free.

your 'old' link page (where I followed the links) is to mostly non-existent links or to implementations of what you call the default implementation. We are offering a link to a professional quality site showing a solution of Frame-Stewart compatible solutions to the general problem - the default one ( 3 peg) is solved (and boring); this is still an open problem and so of interest.

If someone offers a better link, then delete this one as an editorial judgement - currently there are none.

No programming skill are needed to evaluate whether the solution meets or does not the FS move count, only the ability to understand a sigma sign (from the original FS article) and count. The non-referenced pages on the site are more geek-oriented - but we didn't reference them.

I note your assumption that this is our site, but don't see the relevance. We might make a Wiki-friendly page on the site if this would help expose the solutions and meet your strictures on claims - let us know.

I would argue that the link comes under Links to be considered 2) as it is low bandwidth friendly (and can't be included directly). WebMonkTowers (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification on WP:ARBSL
I have filed a request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon Brews ohare in the Speed of light case. As you have recently participated in an arbitration enforcement request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Help:IPA for Cantonese
Please add some Chinese words in the page Help:IPA for Cantonese, such as "ng4", "deu6", "seon6" and "pui4", because I can't write Chinese in my keyboard. Fête (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added two, but could not find instances of the other two. You can just copy and paste from another source if you know of one.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

But you forgot to add the word "seon3" (the word letter in Chinese) to the vowel /ɵ/. Fête (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget, I couldn't find them. I note those are the two without distinct Yale Romanization, only Jyutping. Whole dictionaries and courses have been written using Yale which suggests that all of Cantonese can be Romanized with it. Which made me think of one place to look, Jyutping, so I've used the two from there.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

ticket
You pronounce /ˈtɪkɪt/ or /ˈtɪkɛt/ for the word ticket ? Fête (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * /ˈtɪkɪt/, though it often becomes /ˈtɪkɘt/.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hong Konger pronounce /ˈtɪkɛt/ ? Fête (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In Hong Kong I think they use the same British pronunciation as me, though it's 15 years since I lived there so I can't say for sure.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mandarin
Do you know how to say soft in Mandarin ? Fête (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

ɵy
The vowel of the word no in British English don't like the vowel /ɵy/ in Cantonese ? Listen here [[Media:En-uk-no.ogg]] Fête (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We're discussing this on the help talk page already, it would be better to continue there.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

fête
Do you know the word fête ? Fête (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. And that's the last random question I'm answering; if you want to discuss a page use it's talk page. If you want answers to general questions use the reference desk.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See talk:Fête. Fête (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Mentioned you here NE Ent 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement thread closed
A thread at arbitration enforcement which you filed has been closed as follows: Brews ohare will be issued a final warning, logged to WP:ARBSL, that the topic ban covers all material reasonably and closely related to physics, regardless of what page such material is on. Brews ohare is further urged to request clarification from an uninvolved administrator (preferably one familiar with the case) or here at AE prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question. Such clarification requests made in good faith will not be considered a violation of the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

audio

 * [[File:Qc-caisse.ogg]]

What do you hear ? Fête (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not answering any more questions like this here. If it relates to an article or help page then ask at that talk page. If it's a more general question then ask at the reference desk.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me the last time what do you hear. Fête (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)