User talk:Nicodene

Yum-yum! Delicious Romanian cognates, nyaa~!
Yum-yum! Delicious Romanian cognates, nyaa~!

Ser be etre shi (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC) 

Kramatorsk railway station attack
Hello. Your link on reference doesn't work. please fix, thanks. KurtR (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Nicodene (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps more very experienced (real) editors need to be contacted and brought into the Bucha article
Certain "elements" seem to have taken an interest in the article. They seem to be very concerned about Russia's reputation.

I would find numerous Wikipedia editors with long histories and ask them to come over and work on the article.

Or at least keep it on "Watch" in their accounts.

Cheers. Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chesapeake77 The actual article is doing ok so far, thanks to its semi-protected status. But yes, I'll keep an eye on it. Nicodene (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nicodene Thanks for your good work!


 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That Satellite images were used to prove that Russia had lied is a fact
Russia claimed the Bucha bodies were placed after the Russian Army left.

The satellite images proved this claim to be false-- and that the bodies were there when the Russians were there.

BBC News agreed that Maxar's satellite imagery from 19 March showed body-like objects in the same positions that corpses were filmed in the 1 April video, contradicting Russian claims of the corpses being "staged" after Russia's departure.[65] Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chesapeake77 Yeah I don't dispute anything about that. I just think that the title of the section should be simple and 'modest'. Compare the titles of the preceding and following sections, which also contain damning evidence. Nicodene (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is a way to convey it more modestly, but without missing that Russia made a false claim. Currently the false claim is only mentioned so briefly in the section-- that many readers could miss it.


 * Simplicity is good, but not so simple that the key points can be lost.


 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chesapeake77 Better now? Nicodene (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's excellent! I would not change a thing. Cheers!


 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Progress on Latin phonology and orthography rewrite
Hi. I just wanted to check in with the rewrite of the "Latin phonology and orthography" article, since you said on Talk:Latin phonology and orthography that you'd have a read through Cser 2020 and make an appropriate summary of the content. Since it's been a bit over two months since you lasted posted that message on the talk page (and you don't seem to have edited Latin phonology and orthography, as far as I can tell), I'd just like to ask how the summary is coming along. If you've been busy/not so great IRL and haven't really had the time to work on the summary, just let me know in vague terms – I can wait :)

Cheers — MeasureWell (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @MeasureWell I'm more available these days. Anyway, here is a summary of what Cser says:
 * Whether Latin ⟨qu⟩ and ⟨gu⟩ represented, or simply ,  remains controversial. The relevant facts are as follows. ⟨qu⟩ enjoyed a wide lexical distribution, while ⟨gu(V)⟩ was limited to a dozen or so words, where it was always preceded by /n/. The grammarian Velius Longus commented that the ⟨u⟩ of ⟨qu⟩ was in some way different from /w/ in general. No geminate *⟨ququ⟩ is attested, while all (other) Latin stops are also found as geminates. (Other) sequences of obstruent + glide are rare in Classical Latin. In poetry, whenever (other) sequences of stop + glide occur in medial position, the scansion reveals that they are split across syllables, but this is never the case for ⟨qu⟩. Neither ⟨qu⟩ nor ⟨gu⟩ are ever followed by a consonant, unlike any (other) Latin stop, nor can they occur word-finally. The voicing contrast between ⟨nqu⟩ and ⟨ngu⟩ is not found in any (other) sequence of three consonants. Assimilation of the prefix ad- to a following ⟨qu⟩ is relatively rare, as it is whenever ad- is followed by a consonant cluster. The Proto-Indo-European predecessor of Latin ⟨qu⟩ is, in many cases, reconstructed as a single consonant *, notably distinct from sequences of *. Occasionally Latin /w/ scans as a vowel in poetry, when preceded by /s/ or /l/, but this is never the case for the ⟨u⟩ in ⟨qu⟩. On the whole, however, Cser judges that the evidence slightly favours ,  over ,.
 * Nicodene (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Nicodene (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Georgian IPA
Please revert your recent unilateral changes to transcriptions of Georgian. As Manual of Style/Pronunciation says, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers. 18:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nardog: [ɛ, ɑ, ɔ] is quite inaccurate, first of all, and I am not going to reinstate any such transcription. Second, your idea of a broad transcription for Georgian appears to be simply phonemic. In that case, we should make it unambiguously phonemic and use /e, a, o/ per the principle of having 'simple' Latin characters for broad or phonemic transcription. Nicodene (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "my idea". Our keys for German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Turkish, and lots more use broad transcriptions that would be "quite inaccurate" by your measure. You seem to harbor the idea that a phonetic transcription is necessarily narrow and a broad transcription is necessarily phonemic, which anyone who's read the Handbook of the IPA (especially pp. 28–30) knows not to be true. All our transcriptions linking to keys under "Help:IPA/..." except the one for English are enclosed by brackets because they are meant to be intelligible to anybody who's familiar with the IPA but not necessarily with the phonology of the language in question. Narrowness is a continuum, and we do away with diacritics as long as there's no contrast within the language, and use established conventions wherever possible. And Shosted & Chikovani suggest $⟨ɑ, ɛ, ɔ⟩$ are indeed established, and $⟨ɑ⟩$ is even closer to the realization than $⟨a⟩$.
 * As WP:BRD explains, whenever a unilateral change is contested, the expected course of action is to restore the status quo and initiate a discussion. I once again ask you to do the former. Help talk:IPA/Georgian is the place to do the latter. Nardog (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nardog No, I am aware that phonetic transcriptions lie on a continuum of broad to narrow. What I am telling you is that the transcriptions that you support for Georgian are quite literally phonemic ones placed in square brackets. If Wiki policy really is to use transcriptions that are (at least ostensibly) phonetic for all non-English languages, then so be it.
 * I have read Shosted & Chikovani, so I am aware of the following:
 * - It is based on a sample size of exactly one speaker (who, incidentally, shows marked regional features in his pronunciation; cf. [ɡɑjɛɾɑ] for gaiara, with /a/ > "[ɛ]" in hiatus with other vowels a clear Imeretism).
 * - The transcriptions were made by a native English speaker who doesn't speak Georgian. His ⟨ɛ, ɑ, ɔ⟩ is consistent with thinking in an 'English mould'.
 * In Georgian language you can see, for example, four cited sources that show Georgian ე and ო as mid (not low-mid). Of them, Canepari (2007) indicates the position of the vowels far more specifically than any other source that I am aware of. I can add more sources if needed, but suffice it to say that what Shosted says does not represent the view of some established majority whatsoever. His article simply happened to be cited early on in the history of the English Wikipedia page and had escaped any challenge until now due to the paucity of editors simultaneously knowledgeable in linguistics and Georgian. Nicodene (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you saying this to me? If you really want different vowel symbols on Help:IPA/Georgian, then propose them on its talk page. If you can show with sources that $⟨ɑ, ɛ, ɔ⟩$ aren't established symbols for these vowels (the qualities aren't that relevant unless they're too far off), you will likely succeed. Nardog (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

IPA-derived script vs. Latin-derived script
Until a few days ago, Proto-Romance words were shown with an IPA-derived which showed the lax/tense vowel distinction, stress position, palatalized consonants and more. However, you recently replaced these with a script that's based on the Latin spellings of these words. I suspect the reason you made this change was to make the derivation of each Proto-Romance word from its Latin counterpart more obvious, however, it removes distinctions that are important for the examples.

For example, the word "soror (nom.)/sororem (acc.)" is given as an example of the way stress mobile between cases in some words. However, when they're written like this, it's not obvious at all where the stress is in each form, especially for those with less familiarity with Latin. The previous script, "sɔ́ror (nom.)/soróre (acc.)" makes this distinction obvious.

More importantly, I feel that this IPA-derived script actually tells you how the words were pronounced. While a reader could theoretically look at each Latin-script Proto-Rom word, and derive the reconstructed pronunciation by running thru the phonology section, I think that this is unrealistic.

I do however understand the utility of making the Latin form explicit, so I propose a compromise: Use the IPA derived script, but show the Latin ancestor too, with a link to Wiktionary, so that the full, "original" Latin inflection can be seen. Here's an example of what I'm imagining (the exact format could be changed; the Latin lemma might be better at the top?)

I think this a nice solution that best shows both the Proto-Romance pronunciation and the Latin words that they're derived from, without introducing too much clutter. 2001:8003:B049:DD01:870:6391:2949:91A1 (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article, both the original version with IPA script in the morphology tables and the current version that switches to Latin orthography. That is to say that I am aware of the former’s benefits. The problem is simply that it is Original Research (which is against Wikipedia policy): the cited sources do not provide the transcriptions in question. I had made them myself by running Latin words through the expected sound-changes.
 * I hope this clarifies matters. Nicodene (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, it's sad to see them go. I'm at least glad to know there was a good reason for the switch, even if the outcome is unfortunate. 2001:8003:B049:DD01:11D2:BAEC:629B:EBBE (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)