User talk:Peter Isotalo/Archive 6

Macedonia (terminology)
You leave me no choice then, I'm going to have to AFD the article, as with Old school I don't think it can survive the process, it's going to end up being broken up.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tulips
Peter, thank you so much for the kind note. I really enjoyed working on Tulip Mania, and I'm glad others enjoyed reading it too! --JayHenry (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Goan Catholics
Can you help me by improving the History section of the Goan Catholics article. Sanfy


 * I'd like to help, but I don't really see how. I know virtually nothing about the topic.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Articulation positions versus role in formation of syllables
Hi, Peter!

I wonder whether you have any opinion on the usage or non-usage of the terms "contoid" and "vocoid" in modern linguistics?

More generally, how does modern phonetics distinguish e.g. a "consonant" in the sense of a sound with a certain kind of articulation, and a "consonant" in the more etymological sense "with-sounding", i.e., "not forming the 'nucleus' of a syllable". How is e.g. r in Brno classified (not to mention more irregular interjections et cetera, such as m in English "Hmph!" or s in Swedish "Pst!").

I also wonder whether in general the various voiceless vowel sounds in English or Swedish denoted by the letter h are classified as "consonants from articulation point of view". (With "various sounds" I only refer to pronounced "stand-alone" h, noting that it then normally is articulated as the voiceless variant of the succeeding vowel sound.)

I miss you at sw:wp; I respect your sentiments, if you don't miss us. Yours faithfully, JoergenB (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have any strong of qualified opinions in this matter. It seems like a useful alternative term for sounds in gray areas, but to me it seems more like a matter of deciding whether one is discussing phonology or phonetics. Besides, just about all classification schemes tend to have exceptions.
 * Not sure I follow you concerning the , though. What would be an example of a voiceless vowel in either English or Swedish? The only voicless vowels I'm aware of are those that are more or less entirely reduced between or after voiceless consonants in Japanese.
 * Thanks for your kind words.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, anyhow!
 * As for my question about h sounds, I'm sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was roughly the following: Neither English nor Swedish uses "voiceless vowels" in ordinary language, as far as I know. However, if you whisper the sentence Now, hear what I whisper (or Hör nu vad jag viskar), the full sentence will be voiceless; and actually (at least when I test it), in "hear" and "hör", respectively, the "h" and the subsequent "vowel" will be pronounced in the same manner (resulting in an "extra long whispered vowel"). If you test pronouncing words like "he", "her", "house", "hat", and "hot", whispered and unwhispered, I'm sure that you'll notice the difference between the various "h" sounds; in each case, it is in principle a "whispered" variant of the following vowel.
 * (NB: This is not my OR; I saw it mentioned in a discussion of vowel harmony in Finnish. The text book was referring to various ways of forming illative, including a doubling of the end vowel + n, and how in the development -sen > -hen > [doubling]n one could see a kind of complete vowel harmony, which actually generally holds for the h sound.)
 * My conclusion was, that a purely phonetic characterisation of the distinction between "consonants" and "vowels" might lead to funny results for "h". However, if you don't recognise this, then I guess it is not a problem that bothers liguists overmuch...-JoergenB (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think understand what you're getting it at, but I really don't have enough expertise to comment. I recommend asking about this over at WikiProject Languages or WikiProject Phonetics. There are editors there who are a lot more qualified than me active in those projects.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll follow your advice. Over and out. JoergenB (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter Isotalo
I have told you that I am not going to fight you anymore about your fanatical over-possessiveness of the Subtlety page. That said, you are completely out of line going onto the page of my friend and interfering with our personal correspondence about your wild attacks on page edits. What two people say about you on their own talk pages is none of your business. If you had not acted like an absolute despot about the page there would not even be a discussion. Please do not interfere with people's private affairs. I feel that you have absolutely NO GRASP of the distinction between public (allowing people other than you to have a say about the Wiki) and private (a conversation between two friends).  S a u d a d e 7  04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What you post for everyone to see is not personal correspondence. If you want to smear me with comments like "crazy guy" and other baloney and expect me to take it with a smile, at least do so via email. Your description of the dispute at talk:subtlety is completely disingenuous and unfair. I have not monopolized the article. I merely reverted my own mistakes and corrected statements based on serious source materials and relevant counter arguments. Almost everything else has been bluster from editors who though that policy-arguing and pure stubbornness were equal to serious research and dedicated writing.
 * I'm not going to bicker about whether that nasty talkpage comment should stay or not, but I think it was in my right to point out that I didn't approve of your open hostility. I've opted for simply pointing out my dissatisfaction over at user talk:Amoisey and I think you should tolerate that.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Medieval cuisine
I've gone in and made some relatively minor changes in phrasing that seemed good to me, which you can keep or revert as you please. There were several things I couldn't deal with myself: Dietetics: "Medical science of the Middle Ages had a much greater influence on what was considered healthy and nutritious."—much greater than what? Etiquette: "There was an increasing trend throughout the Middle Ages to escape the stern collectivism that permeated the entire period. Otherwise the medieval meal was a communal affair, like every other part of life." This is fairly confusing. If the trend kept increasing, how did collectivism permeate the whole period? And what does this have to do with meals? Is the point that dining was usually very communal, but there was increasing social demand for more private meals? Food preparation: "It was more important to make sure that the dish agreed with contemporary standards of medicine and dietetics." Again, more important than what? The medieval kitchen: I'm pretty sure the process of grinding up meat and returning it to the original skin or shape is termed "farcing", but I don't want to include that without a reference; does Adamson say? If necessary, I can provide a ref. Preservation: I'm not sure fermentation really belongs in this section. It doesn't seem like there's enough for a separate section; maybe just discuss it under dairy and beverages? This is a wonderful article, Peter. Keep me posted as you add the dairy section. Choess (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look at the latest addition when I get a chance. WRT fermentation, what I meant was that I'm not sure the commonality with preservation (one to introduce beneficial bacteria and one to exclude harmful bacteria) is sufficient to lump them in the same section, and that perhaps each fermented food or group of food products should be discussed in the appropriate section (so cheese would appear under dairy, wine under beverages, etc.) Your mileage may vary, though. Yours, Choess (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
I see that you are listed in the Peer Review as someone interested in Indie music, smoking, and fighting. I am wondering if you would be interested in participating in a peer review of Bloom Cigar Company at Peer review/Bloom Cigar Company/archive1?--HoboJones (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image size
I have finally come, by chance, to find the answer to the image size riddle: it is simple a syntax of the form. This makes the image larger by a factor rather than by absolute size. Cheers! Rama (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw
I'm watching the discussion and will comment when appropriate. Good luck, and thanks for the invite! ► BMW  ◄  13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came across as harsh. I believe you were really well beyond her ownership (and she had admitted to a few issues), but rather than accept that, you really hammered her on unrelated and unfounded things. Any good that was originally done was therefore completely undone.  I noticed you signed off that discussion with a parting shot - I think you should reconsider that comment, as it really does not read well, and really makes me think you have a huge axe to grind, and were not looking at solutions.  ►  BMW  ◄  15:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed about the end result, and I'm not going to lie about that. I still believe most of what I brought up was relevant. But I'm not going to keep bickering over at HiW. I've apologized to Montana and I thanked both you and Lar for taking the time to comment. Now I'd prefer to just get on with the article issues I left dormant.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Your wonderful work on Medieval cuisine

 * I'm honored and gratefully accept the award. The article is a very dear project to me and the praise is most appreciated. Thank you so much!
 * Peter Isotalo 16:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: I haven't forgotten your request, I'm just in end-of-semester test-writing mode right now. I've seen your new contributions coming in and I will take a look when I have a while to sit down and digest them. Choess (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Preciate it. Take all the time you need.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look over it and made a few minor tweaks. As always, feel free to revert them if you feel I've made a botch of the prose style rather than improved it. After looking over again, my lingering concerns about lumping food preservation and bacterial fermentation together have dissipated; your explanation flows clearly and logically. I may have to sit down and read it over again to get a good sense of the grand scope, but the new additions look good. I think this may be my favorite Wikipedia article. Choess (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies
I am teaching until 3:00 this afternoon, let me wait and look at it then. There are a few things I would like to add to the article and I'd like to check the grammar and all that usual stuff and then we can do it. I'll work on it this afternoon.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stenhorde
The wiki says you're a speaker of Swedish; would you be able to translate this article for me? Google assures me it is in Swedish (although feel free to hit me with something heavy if I turn out to be wrong).Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's Swedish, but really just a bunch of baloney. It's basically just "Stenhorde is the coolest dk [?] in WoW. He rules and never cheats." Speedy delete material if I ever saw it.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves
As with the Indian cuisine articles, please contribute to these discussions:


 * Cuisine of Bangladesh to Bangladeshi cuisine - (discuss) over redirect.
 * Georgian (country) cuisine to Georgian cuisine - (discuss) over redirect.
 * Cuisine of Burma to Burmese cuisine - (discuss) over redirect.
 * Cuisine of Cambodia to Cambodian cuisine - (discuss) over redirect.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rutabaga
Please undo your move of Swede (root vegetable) to Rutabaga. As your edit does not currently have consensus and could be seen as an admin being to quick to make a decision. Also the banner at the top of the page now reads absurdly. Requested move Rutabaga to Rutabaga. Please wait for discussion to end before moving. The original move was made after nobody had responded to an open discussion.--Somali123 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your move was made unilaterally and I simply reverted it. Please see the article talkpage for a detailed explanation.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

HIW
Will resolve the edit conflict, sit tight. Will be offline within about 20 minutes then you can see my changes and go from there. Montanabw (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, done now. Take a good look at it.  I'm not opposed to further breaking out of the African material later, but for now, that one bit was "ready for prime time."   Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think you could slow down a tad? You're not even allowing for replies before implementing some of your own ideas. I'm just saying this because you were quite insistent on telling me to sandbox any new material and wait for consensus.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When I more or less agree with something you have written, we are the two people most likely to argue so, I figure if I like something you've created, we have enough "consensus" that it's worth popping into the article (we can always fight about minor details later). Dana and Ealdgyth will edit anything they find problematic, I think we can both trust them both to be fair--they are willing to disagree with me when they think I'm wrong. There's a line between enough discussion and an endless argument, and if you don't like the details of what I do, then either say so or come up with an even better version.  But endless yammering doesn't write articles.  I like to edit content, not fight over every single word.  You'll win a few, I'll win a few, and if you must have "tribesmen," fine.  I don't like it one little bit, but in the spirit of compromise, I can live with it, it's not a dealbreaker.  Montanabw (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned about the "Islamic empire" stuff. That was proposed and implemented without agreement. But If you've changed your mind about sandboxing any type of boldness, I'm happy to follow suit. I don't like endless discussion either. Just making sure we're on the same page.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we aren't quite on the same page, and you are too quick to make an edit claiming consensus when none is there yet, but I suppose I do too, so as long as we don't edit war or remove tags until specific concerns are addressed, it's fine that you popped in the African stuff. HOWEVER, I still favor sandboxing or discussing major changes and you were right to sandbox your stuff first. (As did I with the Civil War material) Big edits sometimes raise a lot of hackles. Gwinva also sandboxed sme of her medieval stuff way back when, and Wandalstrouring and I sandboxed other sections in the past. It is the tradition on this article for the big stuff.


 * IMHO, you DO need to be more willing to take feedback, and do not assume consensus from mere pleasant words that suggest you may be on the right track, OK? (that said with a smile) The material on firearms in Africa may be in your source, but other sources suggest your source may be incorrect. If we can't agree on some points, we may need to simply omit the material.  As for other stuff, the "Middle East" change was actually made before I had a chance to weigh in, initially I was OK with it, then changed my mind when I saw all the strongest African stuff was mostly about Islamic rulers anyway.  But I also can see both sides, so it isn't a deal-breaker.  But watch out about false consensus.  Ealdgyth, Gwinva, and Dana all are very nice people and peaceable sorts and like people to just get along.  If they say you or I are heading down the wrong track, I'd listen to them because I trust their goodwill, I may not always agree, but I listen, I figure that at least the writing needs clarification, and we usually get to common ground fairly soon.  WP:AGF is a beautiful thing.   Montanabw (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Glengoyne Distillery
I've listed an article I've been working on for peer review, I noticed in the list of participants you mentioned your were interested in food/drink. If you could take a quick gander at the article I'd appreciate it!
 * Thanks [[image:smile.svg]] Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign!) 03:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)