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.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Libertybison ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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.

-- Ymblanter ( talk) 15:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

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.

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

Do I have to write a summary even if I only change one word or two? Rolando 1208 ( talk) 02:49, 9 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

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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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.

Korean is an interesting one, it "looks" like a syllabary but it's actually an alphabet. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 23:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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.

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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. 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, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 08:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Which recent edit? Rolando 1208 ( talk) 07:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Seriously, on Child marriage that is literally what your edit is saying, how can you not see that? And please stop just edit warring your change back in. That's not how BRD works. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 08:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply

It's the opposite, we should stop overusing the word "western". Saying "western values, western medicine, etc." is definitely Eurocentric. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 08:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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?

See the issue with calling something "modern" or "modernity"? Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 12:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

- Please do not add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as you did at Marwari people, as this contravenes WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Thank you - Arjayay ( talk) 10:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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".

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marwari people, you may be blocked from editing.
It was clearly explained, above, that you should not add Indic script to our articles, but have continued to do so, please stop. - Arjayay ( talk) 09:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ( talk) 04:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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.

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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! In this diff: Special:Diff/1188199756, which article were you hoping to move? Cheers, Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Spaceman Spiff 16:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Rolando 1208, regarding your proposed addition to Hindi, please note that the onus to obtain a consensus for inclusion is on you, and you'd need to do so instead of continuing to restore the material. I see a first small discussion attempt at Talk:Hindi § Arabic loanwords, but not the required consensus yet, so please wait instead of reverting, and have a look at WP:DISCFAIL for a helpful essay in case Word0151 ignores this. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It was the stable version before November 30, when Word decided to remove it.

But sure thing, I don't wanna edit war, I'll wait. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 21:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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, Neuropol ^Talk 18:11, 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, Neuropol ^Talk 18:19, 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

Hello, I'm Annh07. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nothing have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Annh07 ( talk) 12:08, 13 July 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.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Pelmeni, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Mellk ( talk) 21:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

It's simple deduction. What's the native language of Marathis? I don't think I've misrepresented the guideline. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 12:27, 24 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

@ Rolando 1208 I reviewed your contributions to revert the unjustified content removals that you've made over the last few months. @ Abecedare Rolando's immediate reaction has been to remove the pronunciation at Ashoka again and to rules-lawyer about edit-warring here, which is not promising. Would you say we should take this to WP:ANI? Theknightwho ( talk) 19:57, 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

See WP:CTOP. WP:CT/IPA covers All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, which certainly includes Bhojpuri language, Marathi people etc.

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for battleground conduct, including assuming bad faith and edit-warring, (eg, [1], [2], [3], [4]). and ignoring feedback despite numerous warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Abecedare ( talk) 20:08, 25 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.

If you keep removing them anyway, I'm just going to go to WP:ANI next time. Theknightwho ( talk) 21:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Okay, but English pronunciations are given according to Help:IPA/English, and the pronunciations you removed at Pinoy are phonemic, so the exact realisation of the diphthong isn't relevant. That's why it's /pɪˈnɔɪ/. Theknightwho ( talk) 21:57, 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

/oi/ is not a phonemic diphthong in English, so no. Theknightwho ( talk) 22:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright, I shall ask Filipino English native speakers for a third opinion then. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 22:46, 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."

Please let us have good faith and disagree respectfully. @ Abecedare I'm really trying here. You tell me if I've done something wrong alright? Rolando 1208 ( talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rolando, this comment, especially coming so soon after your block, is not a good sign of your ability to edit collaboratively; nor is the passive-aggressive needling such as I don't know about you, but I personally find consistency very valuable. Please take this as a last warning. I would also suggest that you minimize your interaction with Theknightwho. Abecedare ( talk) 22:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  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