Hello, Rolando 1208, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the
Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the
Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose
sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow
Wikipedia's policies, or the
page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The
summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Abbyjjjj96 (
talk)
20:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit [...] Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note like "fixed spelling" is helpful even then." (per
H:FIES) —
Abbyjjjj96 (
talk)
03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
It's very unproductive and unconstructive of you to unilaterally change the article title of "Ugaritic alphabet", when you must be aware that there's no consensus for that change on the article talk page, and there has been no formal process or procedure of any kind. (Not to mention that the main motivation for the change, the so-called "abjad"[sic] neologism, is completely bogus and worthless!)
AnonMoos (
talk)
19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I moved it to Ugaritic script, not abjad. A compromise between the two positions. But not good enough for you.
Have it your way, but this issue keeps coming up, and it probably will continue. Both from IPs and registered users.
I have to ask you, why do neologisms bother you so much? You never use the word "computer" or "phone"?? Are these words bogus and worthless? Who are you to decide what words are useful anyways?
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
21:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The issue came up, and it was rejected in discussions on "Talk:Arabic alphabet", and of the half-a-dozen or so renames proposed by User:AleksiB_1945, only one went through (the one on the most obscure writing system). Just from perusing the "Talk:Ugaritic alphabet" talk page and/or revision history, you should have known that the issue was controversial and contested, yet you chose to act unilaterally anyway, which throws a negative light on your actions.
For the record, one problem with "abjad" is that it has a perfectly useful synonym which has been in use for centuries, "consonantal alphabet". That was not true of the word "telephone" before telephones existed. However, the most obnoxious feature of the Peter Daniels terminology spree is actually not the word "abjad", but redefining the word "alphabet" to have a much more narrow meaning than it traditionally had. And it's not up to me to decide -- I merely point out the fact that Danielsisms have not replaced traditional usage among scholars (certainly not in the Semitic realm which is most relevant to "alphabet" vs. "abjad").
AnonMoos (
talk)
01:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Interesting, I didn't know it was Peter Daniels who coined the term, and he also coined "abugida"! How do you even explain the concept without such word? "alphabet with vowels on the top and bottom"? Imagine having to constantly repeat that in a peer-reviewed linguistics paper!!
Perhaps my move and the three previous moves were simply too early. What are you going to do when most Semiticists agree that the word abjad is just more useful? Will you keep being this stubborn or will you finally let it go?
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
12:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
All indications are that it's too early by a number of years.
AnonMoos (
talk)
P.S. It's not standard terminology, but the Ethiopian alphabet could be called a "false" syllabary, since there are many commonalities in appearance as you go down the columns of different consonants combined with the same vowel, and also many commonalities when you look across the rows of the same consonant combined with different vowels. In very strong contrast, in "true" syllabaries such as Japanese
hiragana and
katakana, there is no commonality across any row or column (signs which write the same beginning consonant or the same ending vowel have no significant similarity in appearance). That's why Ethiopean was formerly often called an "alphabet" (don't know if it still is), while the Japanese scripts were never called alphabets by any linguistically-informed person.
AnonMoos (
talk)
23:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
At least with Japanese you acknowledge it's not an alphabet! We agree on that at least.
If each consonant is written with a single visual shape, or with various shapes that have similarities in appearance or are contextually-defined "allographs", then that's a minimum necessary condition for a writing system to be called an alphabet, and traditionally also a sufficient condition. To puzzle your mind over the difference between alphabets and syllabaries, look at the
Iberian scripts or
"semi-syllabaries"...
AnonMoos (
talk)
23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed a recent edit you made does not have an
edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be
quite brief.
Define "modernity". What is "modern"? That is a subjective term.
I might say that a car with an internal combustion engine is "modern". Certainly when compared to a horse and cart it might be, but compared to an electric vehicle, it isn't. Or is it? Electric cars predate internal combustion engines. Now what's modern?
As I mentioned, the wiki article for Tamil people uses the script. Clearly an exception exists for linguistic groups as per the WP. It's what set Marwaris apart too, their language. How can you not see that?
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
23:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, as it clearly states "Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script." Marwari people, are an ethnic group not a "script", not a "language" and not a "text originally written in a particular script." With regard to Tamils, there are very significant populations in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore, so they fall under the exclusion for "any of India's neighbouring countries".
Well I strongly disagree @
Arjayay: since we're talking about an ethno-linguistic group specifically. This group is identified after their language. It's uncontroversial that their mother tongue is Marwari.
I also disagree regarding the Tamils considering that an overwhelmingly majority of them are from India.
You thinking I'm doing vandalism is simply your opinion, I'm doing constructive edits that improve Wikipedia. Please stop edit warring.
Also, there's
Marathi people which also uses their script. There's clearly a precedent here.
Rolando 1208 - I'm not going to edit-war on this, although I will probably seek clarification from
MOS:INDIA about
WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, when I have some spare time. As for your argument that
Tamils and
Marathi people provide precedents, that is NOT the way Wikipedia works - as explained at
WP:OTHERCONTENT "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page" -
Arjayay (
talk)
09:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
The one that it redirects to. It lacks the article "the". I guess if I wanted to move it there I'd have to delete the redirect page? I assumed blanking it would do the trick.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
20:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
December 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Hindi. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hi, I noticed you recently restored an old version which I reverted on
Pinoy. The reversion was made because the user had introduced a random @ sign, and removed content without explaining. I was curious as to your reasoning for restoring this. Thanks,NeuropolTalk18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Neuropol. The word "pinoy" is a Tagalog word, so the English pronunciation is unnecessary. As for the @, it's not random; it stands for both O and A. Hence, Filipin@s, Latin@s, etc.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
18:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
From what I know, the "o" represents a gender neutral state as well as a masculine state.
Is there precedent or instructions in the
manual of style indicating this usage? Also, this is the English Wikipedia, so the English pronunciation is most certainly necessary. Thanks,NeuropolTalk18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Neuropol this word is only used by Filipinos, so the supposed "English pronunciation" isn't used by anyone. In any case they're not that different you know, pɪˈnɔɪ and pɪˈnɔi. If you can read the IPA, you can pronounce the Tagalog one without an issue. It seems redundant to have both since they're nearly identical. You can use Filipino though, if the @ bothers you that much!!
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
18:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Rolando 1208! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Pelmeni several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see
WP:CTVSDS.
Mellk (
talk)
21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Misleading edit summaries
Just wanted to note that I found two of your recent edit summaries to be misleading:
this one misrepresented the actual
guideline it alluded to in justifying the edit, and
this edit not only moved the pronunciations etc from the footnote to the maintext (which would be consistent with the edit summary) but also deleted the IPA w/o any explanation. Please take greater care in the future.
Abecedare (
talk)
14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
btw there are so many Indian editors, the same people who wrote the guideline. Just based on their sheer number you can trust them to enforce their own guideline. Have you looked into why they wrote in the first place, how it came to be? I'd recommend you check that out too. Please don't revert harmless good faith edits.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Rolando 1208 Let me spell it out for you: it is misleading to remove the English pronunciation at
Bhojpuri as you did
here, with the summary No reason to hide the local pronunciation., which implies you are simply unhiding the local pronunciation; something completely different. What the native language of the Marathis is is completely irrelevant, because this is an English encyclopaedia. Removing information and then claiming the result is "good enough" isn't acceptable, really.
Theknightwho (
talk)
19:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Rolando, if you would like to argue that enthnolinguistic groups should be an exception to
WP:INDICSCRIPT, please gain consensus for that change instead of falsely claiming that they already are. Also, don't delete the IPA sourced to OED just because you believe that source is wrong. And, particularly don't do it with another misleading edit summary claiming that "
IPA for local language is good enough" when there is no other
IPA pronunciation included in the
article.
Finally, if you believe that my understanding of the
CTOP or the origins/application of
WP:INDICSCRIPT is flawed, I don't believe there is much point in my trying to convince you otherwise. I would instead advise you to get a second opinion from an experienced editor you trust or at
WP:TEAHOUSE since further violations of either P&G's is likely to get you sanctioned.
Abecedare (
talk)
19:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok I see my mistake. I must have confused IPA with audio pronunciation somehow. But the point in my edit summary still stands. Would you accept the edit if I changed the English IPA with the native one?
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you have a reliable source for IPA of the term 'Bhojpuri' as pronouced in the
Bhojpuri language that may be a worthy addition to the article. Best to discuss the proposal and sources on the article talkpage so that all interested editors can participate.
Abecedare (
talk)
21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Abecedare For context, this user has a bit of a history of trying to remove English pronunciations from terms that they deem not to be English (see most of their recent contributions). No matter how many people say that it's not acceptable to remove them unilaterally like that, they just move on to a different article and carry on.
Theknightwho (
talk)
21:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If this continues, I would suggest reporting it at
WP:ANI. By now Rolando should be aware of both
MOS:IPA and
WP:INDICSRIPT, and should be using article talkpages if they have any doubt. I am cautiously hopeful though that the editor will step back from the current path. Cheers.
Abecedare (
talk)
21:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Abecedare I'd hope so. I've been going through their old contributions, and this has been a theme going on for months, across quite a large number of articles, so I've had to spend quite a while reverting/restoring. @
Rolando 1208 To be absolutely clear here: if I see any more of this, I will have no choice but to escalate things to
WP:ANI, as you've done quite a lot of harm by removing pronunciations like this. I appreciate that you mean well and that you've done it in good faith, but edit summaries like "I really don't see the point of the American pronunciation for an Indian king. Feels like colonialism to me" or claims that the non-English pronunciation is "good enough" (as you did recently) miss the point that English-speakers need to know how to say things in English, even if that differs from the native pronunciation.
On a separate-but-related note: there is an ever-present theme of edit-warring in your contribution history, and some of the worst incidents relate to the removal of pronunciations. For example, I can see 6 removals of the pronunciation from
Ashoka alone back in March, and 4 very recently at
Côte d'Ivoire, where you were only stopped by the page being full protected. Please stop, as at some point you're likely to get sanctioned for it, and at the rate you've been doing it that's likely to be sooner rather than later.
Theknightwho (
talk)
18:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Stalker much? Are you also gonna revert my edits from 12 months ago? Btw as for edit warring, there is a 3 reverts rule, I haven't broken thay one in a long time. The Ashoka edit has consensus. If you want to edit it your way, you need to change the consensus. That's how it works.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
19:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As for CTOP, it is my understanding that it tends to refer to controversial topics like geopolitical conflicts, conspiracy theories, public figures who probably get vandalised a lot, etc. A good example would be something relating to Kashmir, "love jihad", Modi. Not small regional languages. I might be wrong here, but I think that's what it refers to. Lastly, may I ask, how does one gain consensus to amend a policy exactly? I've never done this before.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As for amending
WP:INDICSCRIPT. The process would start with an informal discussion at a centralized location such as
WT:INB or the relevant
village pump, and if there appears to be enough appetite to consider a change and a specific update proposal has been formulated, it would need to followed by an
WP:RFC to establish
consensus for the amendment. Fwiw, this is not something I would recommend.
Abecedare (
talk)
21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Abecedare You're gonna block me for wanting consensus? It took me time to achieve consensus on the Ashoka talk page. He can revert it just like that and I get banned for it? The burden of consensus is on the one who wants to make the change.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're referring to
this thread, but
User:Joshua Jonathan disagreed with you in both comments, while
User:Hwamplero only eventually conceded, saying people could get the pronunciation from Wiktionary, after you removed it from the article 6 times in 3 days (
[5][6][7][8][9][10]). That's not consensus; that's beating the other participants into submission with
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.
I'm not going to respond to this any further, but I really did feel the need to correct you on this, as it's simply wrong to claim there was any kind of consensus for your viewpoint.
Theknightwho (
talk)
20:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Theknightwho That's not how I see it, but fair, I will reduce the frequency of my reverts. 6 times sounds like a lot when you put it that way.
I don't see it as a BATTLEGROUND since I was also using the talkpage. It was not my intention to "beat" anyone. I was also using edit summaries, so there was a back and forth. It was my intention to either convince the other editor or be convinced by his/her viewpoint.
TL;DR: If you don't like lawyers, that's fine. I don't HAVE TO edit 3RR. I also hope you do the same. If I don't revert 2-3 times a day but you do, well, that wouldn't be an equal playing field would it? I'm looking forward to debate you in the talk pages. Have a good weekend mate.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
20:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Theknightwho even if you won't reply, I'll put this here so I won't forget. Yes, we could include all the Filipino languages. But only Tagalog and English are the official languages. As for their English, they pronounce the Tagalog loanwords the native way. Not the American way, not the British way. Cheers.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
21:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Rolando 1208 Please just stop removing them; I haven't yet seen a single other editor agree with you over it, and I'm not prepared to spend large chunks of time justifying why I reverted each removal, because
MOS:DUALPRON is already clear on this: When a non-English name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and non-English pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. The statement include both the English and non-English pronunciations is not ambiguous. You might disagree with it, but you can't just ignore it, and if you want to get it changed then you will need to get the manual of style changed. Also, since you brought it up before,
WP:ONUS is obviously satisfied in these situations, since the justification for inclusion is the fact that the manual of style says that we need to include the English pronunciation in cases like these.
Indeed. And that's how it should be. Filipino English is also a valid form of English, it even has native speakers. So the overwhelming majority of English speakers who use this word in their daily lives are Filipinos. Don't worry, I won't revert you 3 times consecutively, I know you don't like it. You've made it very clear. No lawyer behaviour! And obviously no legalese, I'm not fluent in the jargon anyway. Then again, it feels like you're the prosecutor when you tell me you want to go to WP:ANI. Too confrontational, when I'm trying to tone it down from my part. I just got blocked and you're already talking about my next one. We both need to assume good faith here you know? Cheers.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
21:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We could always put it like "English and Tagalog: /pɪˈnɔi/". And we'd have the accurate pronunciation of Tagalog and Filipino English, the two official languages of this country.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Rolando 1208, please see my full reasoning for the block. As for this
, the edit-warring was made worse by the battleground attitude conveyed in the edit-summary.
Abecedare (
talk)
20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My bad. I just got frustrated that my old contribution from months ago was reverted just like that. Plus, the fact that he seems to be mass reverting my edits didn't help.
How about this "Alright mate, let's figure this one out on the talkpage, shall we?" Is that better? I'll try to be less confrontational from now on.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
21:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Abecedare He's back at it (
[11]). Him demanding (unprompted) that I explain why I didn't add English IPA to a different article doesn't seem reasonable, and is clearly related to the previous dispute over English pronunciations. It's just
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour again.
Theknightwho (
talk)
22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Demanding?!?!?!? No man I'm just asking you. Where is this hostility coming from? So what is this about? I can't revert you. Now I can't even asking you a question on the talk page. You want me to assume good faith but you can't extend the same courtesy to me. What I'm supposed to take from this? That consistency is bad? Why is my comment generating such a strong response from you? Please chillax my good lawyer friend. I'm not your enemy. I don't know about you, but I personally find consistency very valuable.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear @
Theknightwho, per WP:BATTLEGROUND: "In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints."
I just don't understand. @
Theknightwho can make all the edits he wants and I'm never allowed to revert him?? (or even ask him anything on the talk page!!) surely everyone makes mistakes no? He has reverted many of my edits, restoring English IPAs, but I can't ask him about this same topic. I don't see what's wrong in doings things consistently. @
Abecedare what am I supposed to do if he keeps reverting my edits? Am I just in the wrong by default? I didn't mean to insult or offend Knight, I was just asking him. He could have explained why this article doesn't require an English IPA but the other ones do. But he's assumed bad faith and tried to get me banned again. Please be impartial. We both have to edit collaboratively, we both have to be civil, we both have to assume good faith. And not try to get each other banned the moment there is a minor disagreement.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
23:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Rolando, if you want a third opinion on the appropriateness of the phrasing of your comments
here and
here or
here you can ask at
WP:TEAHOUSE although frankly my strong recommendation would be
drop the stick and move on to editing articles that don't involve Theknightwho, and perhaps even IPA and scripts. PS: Do not unnecessarily
ping Theknightwho either.
Abecedare (
talk)
23:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Abecedare ok let's say I phrased in a bad way, I just think consistency is something important for Wikipedia. I would like to avoid Theknightwho, he clearly thinks it's something personal, it's not. I just think consistency is important, am I wrong in thinking this way? Another point is that before he mass reverted me we didn't really interact much, but then he chose to mass revert me, he chose to interact with me. Even if I were to accept his reverts (which don't have consensus), I'm concerned he's gonna keep reverting more of my contributions. Can I at the very least revert him if consensus is against him? I'll try to not ping him or reply directly to him as to avoid confrontation. But I think if he can revert me if there's a good reason, so can I, right? As long as my reverts align with policy, guidelines, and consensus.
Rolando 1208 (
talk)
14:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply