User talk:Uaxuctum~enwiki

Hi there, would you be interested in writing the page about catalan orthography and phonology in catalan as well? Please note the learning project that is discussed on my page as well. Get-back-world-respect 02:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spanish in the Philippines?
Stop writing about Spanish usage in the Philippines until you actually visit the country and know what you are talking about. Muchas Gracias.


 * Firstly, it is very impolite (apart from cowardly) to leave an anonymous unsigned message on another user's talk page, specially when it is a personal attack. Secondly, Wikipedia is not concerned about any user's own personal knowledge (not mine, and not yours either), but about reporting published data, and that's exactly what I did: it's not me who says there are still Spanish speakers in the Philippines, it was a report by an official institution, as well as the Philippine census; and the historical use and cultural influence of Spanish for several centuries in the archipelago is extensively documented and well-known. Besides, having a look at your edit history it seems clear that you have some kind of personal pique against the Spanish language (you even tried to downplay its presence in South America). Uaxuctum 10:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yellow
I just saw when studying your contributions that you must know about colors. Check out what I wrote at Talk:Complementary color. 66.32.251.161 00:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Color blindness
In addition to having no inclination to keep debating, I feel like the argument has basically played out; we don't really disagree anymore, we just continue to push each others' buttons. In the interest of the community (i.e. in case anyone else cares), I've tried to summarize our conversation. You will see that in the way I've organized the points I've been guided by where I stand on the status of your arguments relative to mine, e.g. placing your argument (point 1.1) and my argument (1.2) under point 1 (on which I think we agree). I'm sorry if this seems like political bullshit, but I think there are some worthwhile conclusions buried in all our long-winded back-and-forth, so I did it. If you think the summarizing thing is total crap, you could just delete it, but I hope you'll read through it and incorporate/modify your points where I've failed to represent them adequately. Of course, my bias was to justify my side of the nitpicking, but I tried to resist nitpicking in the summary in general. I predict you'll want to merge 1.1 into 1, saying they are the same things; I don't quite agree; this was the root of my objection to your approach in the first place.

Back to my Wikivacation... --Chinasaur 21:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ceqli language
It was so nice to see you defend the article on Ceqli against claims of obscurity (even from within conlanging's own community! :shudder:) and amidst all the hysterical (and false) accusations of sock puppetry. Now that you have a lot of posts to your name, you can defend to article at Votes for Undeletion. We really need you over there.
 * I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to get into that can of worms again even if it were for all the treasures the world. I got seriously scalded last time, which kept me away from Wikipedia for months. I was no newbie back then, I had already posted around 150 contributions (none of them reverted) when I was merrily called a sockpuppet by no less than an administrator who hadn't even cared to check that simple fact before making such an accusation and threatening to ban me, and then someone left an insulting comment on the very frontpage of my userspace. That experience made me realize very clearly just how ingenuously mistaken I was about Wikipedia and for a good while I had no intention to ever come back to this website again. Uaxuctum 08:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Playing cards
A while back you mentioned something about Latin suited and French suited playing cards. Feel free to add information if you find this important as I would like to get this article featured. You obviously know more about the subject, since I never heard of the different sort of suits before I read your comment. At any rate, I don't think they should have their own articles, since I doubt someone would type it in the search box, but you could always put in a redirect if you want to :) Having all playing card info in one article unless it grows to big would be best in my opinion. Please reply on my talk page. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:32, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Total Eclipse of the Heart
Seriously, Titles do not have capital letters when it comes to words like of, the and stuff like that. Check it up if you don't believe me. //EliasAlucard 10:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Timelines of Classical Composers
Uaxuctum, this certainly is an omission. I made the inital versions of the timelines. Most are based on existing tables. The famous composers was a selection I made as a starter to be completed by people with better knowledge. I do like 20th century music, just felt it was not me who should do this. So please use your expertise and fill the void Erik Zachte 12:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images have uploaded to wikicommons
Hello, I have uploaded Image:Alicante Spain marina.jpg, Image:Alicante Spain CastilloSantaBarbara.jpg and Image:Alicante Spain townhall.jpg to wikicommons with the same file name. --Burn 01:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vandal
Thanks for the heads up, he's currently blocked. Laughing in my face is a matter of absolutely no importance, but continuing page move vandalism is. I believe all his damage is repaired. - Nunh-huh 21:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Arabic)
Greetings! Since you recently contributed to Arabic transliteration, I thought you might be interested in the following project: Naming conventions (Arabic). It's designed to create standards for Arabic transliteration to use on Wikipedia, to make it easier for users to find articles consistently. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Indexi
Hello, good work on Indexi, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Indexi? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Somebody else added the link already. I found the info on the progarchives.com website. Uaxuctum 23:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

reddish green and yellowish blue
Thank you So much for the Info about reddish green and yellowish blue and the link to the PDF. I allways dreamed of seeing a new color.--E-Bod 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Basque Portal?
Kaixo, I'm contacting you because you figure in Category:User eu, meaning that you speak some Basque. You must therefore be Basque yourself or have an intense connection with the Basque Country.

I am thinking that maybe was a good idea to create a Portal (or maybe a Wikiproject? or both?) on the Basque theme but I feel such kind of project requires more than just one person.

If you are interested, please comment in my talk page.

Enjoy, --Sugaar 10:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

skyscrapercity.com
I looked at the criteria for Notability for Web Content. It requires that there be published works dealing with the topic, awards won by the content, or publishing independent of the creators. The article fir neither of these, and the article's name was a website, common for advertisement based articles (also criteron for Speedying). I apologize if this was a requested page, but the Notability guidelines still stand regardless of whether it was requested or not. - Jake - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 05:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, so obviously an admin made the call. That's why I don't want to become an admin.  I have independence, and a second party gives a once-over check after I tag. - Jake Bladeswin | Talk to me | 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't magically bring the page back to remove the speedy tag. Someone deleted it. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Forum
First of all, I didn't write the deletion message, someone else did. Second of all, the article was entirely in spanish, and already existed on the Spanish wiki, which is a criteria for deletion. Thus, if you want it undeleted, you're going to have to take it to DrV. --InShaneee 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User:Uaxuctum/Forocoches. It doesn't look like much of an article to me, but see what you can do per WP:WEB. Guy 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved in to forocoches.com, sorry for the delay. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyscrapercity.com
Wow, so then should we write about the other 101 non-notable forums ranked higher? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:WEB. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Voiced and semi-voiced
I understand what you are saying about the voicing diacritic, but I interpret the sentence to read more like this: The is in reference to the fully voiced while the (in my edit, not present)  refers to the lightly voiced sibilant. Thus, with my edit, there isn't given IPA for the lightly voiced realization. I omitted this because I didn't want to strain the reader with too much technical IPA.
 * Before voiced consonants, is sometimes lightly voiced or fully voiced.

I don't know what you mean by "tense" or "lax." Those are terms that are generally avoided nowadays in linguistics because they've been overused. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From my understanding, fortis and lenis are phonological terms. That is, they are used to describe pairs of consonants that behave similarly to or are cognate with sounds pairs that have a voicing distinction.  For instance, English and Spanish both have /t/ and /d/ (notice the / slashes / that indicate phonemic representation); Because English /t/ is actually  and English /d/ is often devoiced (we'll say [t] for simplicity's sake), they are obviously not distinguished by voicing as they are in Spanish.  Thus /t/ in both languages can be described as fortis while /d/ is lenis.  However, when we get to the phonetics of it, fortis and lenis go out the door.  English has  and.
 * Even if, for whatever reason, someone use fortis and lenis phonetically, in Spanish they'd become synonymous with voiceless and voiced so that a voiceless phoneme ("fortis" may have a voiced allophone thus turning "lenis" .  With this interpretation, the claim in your summary that /f/ and /s/ remain "tense" would really mean that they remain voiceless, even though the article states that they sometimes become fully voiced.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're guilty of a little original research here, but the distinction you hear may be between a fully unvoiced [f] and a partially unvoiced one. If you haven't heard a fully voiced one, then even your subjective experience would be lacking. What you describe in Ewe is a phonological distinction between labial fricatives.  In totality, the only difference between the voiceless labiodental fricative and the voiced labiodental fricative is voicing.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, calm down. I'm not making an ad hominem attack and if it seems like I might be, I'd appreciate if you gave me the benefit of the doubt.  The fact of the matter is, whatever tenseness is (and I think I can reasonably assert that neither of us can tell what it means phonetically from either source you've provided) your (language-specific) claim that /f/ and /s/ "remain tense" in contexts where they aquire partial or full voicing is going to need a source to back it up. Wikipedia editors can't be "discredited" because Wikipedia editors are not sources.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jean Nouvel and Gasometer
Hello! Thank you for your comment regarding the blacklisting of the Link to the Gasometer-Website. It was my fault, that the link got into the blacklist, because I have added this link with a photograph of the Gasometer to Jean Nouvel articles in other languages of wikipedia - so the spamfilter thougt I would spam wikipedia. I have already talked to the admin User:Eagle 101 - who has worked on the blacklist-request, but he answered, that there are "a lot of other resources as well" and he does not show any effort to remove the link from the blacklist or to whitelist it. (this is my opinion) - let have a look at his discussion page on User_talk:Eagle_101. Maybe he will react on your request/posting. Greetings from Vienna Andreas.poeschek 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted only to leave the comment here, that somebody has "reorganized" the Jean Nouvel article and erased all buildings of Jean Nouvel. :-( Andreas.poeschek 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Good news. The admins removed the Gasometer-Link from the Blacklist, so you can edit the article without any problems. Thank you again for your comments for removing the link from the blacklist. Greetings from Vienna Andreas.poeschek 12:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chilean Spanish
Hi. Tantos años sin leerte. Your changes in Chilean Spanish are right, but your comments seem like you consider Spanish from Spain as Standard Spanish... I'd like remove almost such list because there is plenty of mistakes. However, lime is called limón in many countries (see es:Lima (fruta) and es:Citrus x aurantifolia). But, I came mainly to say Hola and beg (¿?) your support for clean the article of errors. Bye. --Lin linao 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand your comments now. In fact, DRAE is not a reliable source in many fields (as botanic): Citrus x aurantifolia is called "limón" in Mexico, Peru and many other countries, and it has so number of another names that is difficult to say if there is an standard (I correct that example, because in Chile is called "limón de Pica"). Your vission about support claims with diccionaries is corret, of course, however, it could avoid examples in such quantity :). Bye. Lin linao 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags reverted
Why do you consider the addition of unreferenced and notability tags to be disruptive, when applied to articles with no citations and for which another editor has publicly advanced the opinion that these articles are even less notable than another that I tagged in good faith? Dicklyon 20:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The disruptive thing was to start putting those tags in lots of articles just to make a point. Especially when they call into question the notability of such numbers as 36 and Theodorus's constant. Uaxuctum 20:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's disruptive, and I didn't do it to make a point. I did it to follow up on the comment that Newyorkbrad made about those articles, which I agreed with.  The articles are better with the tags than without, as they help editors find out what is needed. Dicklyon 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Restored the "unreferenced" tags. But to be consistent, we should then start adding them also to most of the other articles on numbers, which is why I don't really find them appropriate, especially when most of the things that are stated in those articles are readily verifiable without the need of citations. Uaxuctum 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no guideline that says when you improve one article you need to do the same for the rest. That would be quite unworkable.  But if you come across articles that need such a tag, by all means do it.  You need to brush up on WP:Verifiability; it's not about whether you could derive a result yourself, but whether it's a result that has been previously derived; you can't do that without references. Dicklyon 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what do you think needs to be referenced or to have citations added on the 36 (number) article? Surely not the mathematical facts, and most of the other things are linked to other articles as it is, I had references for a few of the others in the form of external links but someone came through and removed them ages ago for some reason (I asked why but they never responded), but they are easily verifiable in any event. Also what form should these references/citations take?Number36 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I put the tags originally, I'll answer. Basically, just want to conform to WP:V, an official policy which says among other things "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  So being derivable is not very relevant; sources are needed for statements, so that they are "verifiable" in the wikipedia sense, not by original research.  If you'd like, I can add fact tags on the assertions that ought to be sourced. Dicklyon 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That policy refers to things which are 'challenged or likely to be challenged', mathematical facts are not likely to be challenged as they are self-evident and provable facts, I can hardly see that most of the other things are likely to be challenged either, especially when the bulk of them contain links to articles that go into greater detail and confirm the described facts. Original research in the sense that wikipedia objects to has nothing to do with it so I can't see why you would bring it up.Number36 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently we interpet the policy differently. That's OK, I guess.  But since you seem to be into the number 36, why not cite some sources? Dicklyon 23:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes evidently we do view the policy differently as I consider what you've just done to the article as ludicrous. How you could interpret 'challenged or likely to be challenged' as anything other than exactly what it says I'm not sure, who for instance do you imagine is going to challenge the fact that 36 is the number of degrees in the angles of a perfect five tipped star? Or that the 36 officers problem is a mathematical problem when it clearly links to the article about the mathematical problem of that name? Or likewise that it's the atomic number of Krypton? On what legitimate grounds would any of these things be challenged?Number36 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am challenging those myself; the first because without a reference it's not clear what is meant by a perfect five tipped star (I can draw a five-tipped star with pointier or less pointy tips; who is define that as not perfect?); the second because it is not self-evident that there is any such mathematical puzzle, and because wikipedia articles are never to be regarded as reliable sources (read about secondary and tertiary sources in WP:RS). Dicklyon 00:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to continue, probably we should copy this to the article's talk page. Dicklyon 00:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me.Number36 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also have serious doubts about the appropriateness of these tags. I will watch the further colloquy but my present inclination is to strike them all (they are, however, less troublesome than the notability tags, which I believe were outright disruptive). Newyorkbrad 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Uaxuctum. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Uaxuctum~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2015 (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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Square root of 5 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Square root of 5 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Square root of 5& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)