Hi Kwami, I don't suppose you could help out with this most recent objection to the Ido article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ido
I'm going to address it myself but I suspect you'd be still better at it than I. Mithridates 09:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I added on most of what Mark objected to, except for the bit about this:
I suppose what I was wondering was whether there are any better terms to use than 'canonical' syllable, complex onsets and that sort of thing. I don't want it to become too technical because that could be an objection from another point of view. I did add quite a bit about the syntax and put in an extra chart describing consonants after his objection, so I think that does adress most of what he was getting at but I thought I'd check with you anyway to see what you thought. Overall though, reaction to the article seems to be pretty good and I'm happy with that. More suggestions this time though than when I submitted it to peer review, which is nice. Mithridates 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
you speak esperanto! a rare thing. what is the language like? the article doesn't really tell you what language it is based upon, or is it simply an amalgamation of the most popular? not that that would be simple. anyway is it worth learning? i would love to learn a language, particually french, but im too lazy and impatient. does esperanto really help? check out my article on language reform, i think it needs the touch of an expert like yourself. mastodon 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
My comment about IPA in Talk:Pronunciation of asteroid names was primarily motivated by the Manual of Style. I suppose that the whole issue of how to represent pronunciation has been discussed many times before. I found that for example, the Wikipedia:Simple pronunciation markup guide was rejected. I thought consistency is important to Wikipedia, and the Manual of Style is here for this reason. Are we supposed to take it serious, or shall we reinvent the rules as we go? I find that inconsistency is one of the many problems wiith Wikipedia. Of course there are others more serious, and I spent a lot of time on one if them, as you know. I would be curious to know what your opinion is about Wikipedia Manual of Style and about consistency in general. I value your opinion as an experienced editor, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am just wondering. I agree on the dialect issue. Andreas 19:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Youn have deleted my refernce to Sango, Thats OK but could you please include some reference to Sango as the Sango page links to here. Jameswilson 23:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. Jameswilson 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Would it be at all possible for you to weigh in at Talk:Table of nations#Requested move. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother you about this, but the sudden appearance of 3 editors on the talk page despite nothing happening for a week makes me suspicious that something underhand is going on. --User talk:FDuffy 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
hi. i finally updated Image:Langs N.Amer.png following most of your suggestions. if you want to comment further, feel free to do so. thanks for making the suggestions. – ishwar (speak) 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hay Kwamikagami, I also like astronomy. I was just reading about how you knew about the batch of names just put in the Uranian system & pluto's two new moons. I think this is cool, I would like to know where you got this info. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk) 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you made an edit to Language talking about chimps. You might be interested in the other 'talking chimp' articles: Koko (gorilla), Kanzi, Washoe, Chantek (there may be others). Whichever side you're on, it would be nice to get some more input :) - FrancisTyers 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Open your PDF file in Adobe Reader, and look for a rightward-pointing triangle just above the vertical scroll bar at the top-right corner area of the window. Click it, and a menu will appear. Select "Preferences", "Page Display", and then "Smooth text". -- Denelson 83 06:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have replied at my talk. Regards, — mark ✎ 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I recall reading here [2] (page 4) that Russian, Irish, and Marshallese contrast palatalization with velarization as if palatalized and plain aren't enough of a contrast so that plain prevocalic consonants become velarized. This isn't a universal occurance in Russian but a frequent one. You can check those sources. If you really disagree with including the velarization marker I suppose it doesn't matter either since marking velarization in Russian is part of narrow transcription
By the way, I hope you haven't forgotten the discussion in talk:close-mid front unrounded vowel; I'd really like to see your sourcing in marking the mid vowels as separate vowels. AEuSoes1 21:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
So Ж and Ш are retroflex and laminal, О is open-mid, /s/ and /z/ are dental, and plain /r/ is postalveolar? I'm all ears. AEuSoes1 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You misspelled "murmured" as "mumured" at the bottom of the image. Denelson 83 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
hi. i have been trying to build up the evidentiality article. if you are interested, perhaps you can review/improve it. peace – ishwar (speak) 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you have a look on what User:Thrax is doing in the article Ancient Greek phonology. Andreas 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Kwami! As you already know, the article has been renamed to Hindu-Arabic numerals. Please keep an eye on it since it is prone to frequent vandalism. deeptrivia ( talk) 07:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thrax is at it again on Ancient Greek phonology, POV pushing without even pretending to look for consensus. I don't know what you told him last time you blocked him, but it was effective for a while. It is annoying and frustrating to be spending one's time defending articles -- especially after User:LukasPietsch and others have contributed so much meaty content -- rather than improving them. -- Macrakis 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thrax made a POV article move. I've tagged the Ancient Greek phonology for speedy delete, please (if you believe I did right) verify it to the admin who'll check it. +MATIA ☎ 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Kwami, I don't understand why we need to tolerate dirty tricks like this. -- Macrakis 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No need to speedy delete, the old name now points to Reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek. Andreas 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've also left a note at Tony Sidaway about it. +MATIA ☎ 23:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Denelson 83 03:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles for the following IPA sounds need data on their linguistic usage and extent, such as examples of words that use those sounds and the languages they are found in, along with whether they are allophonic or phonemic in those words:
[ɳ], [ɴ], [ɖ], [q], [ʡ], [ʂ], [ʐ], [ʝ], [ħ], [ʜ], [ʢ], [ɦ], [ɻ], [ɽ], [ɭ], & [ʟ].
If such information is not provided, I may have to submit these articles for deletion. -- Denelson 83 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, now Thrax has moved Ancient Greek phonology again, against consensus and against the explicit statement by an admin. I suppose we have to start proceedings against him. What a pain. Any advice you have would be welcome. -- Macrakis 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thrax started a POV fork named The historical pronunciation of ancient Greek Andreas 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There's been a discussion on Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences about whether there's a significant difference between "American English" and "British English" (and more specifically, GA and RP) as far as the relationship of schwa and the STRUT vowel is concerned. Some sources (e.g. the OED 3rd edition pronunciation guide) suggest that they're the same phoneme in "AmE" but different in "BrE". Do you have any comments? -- JHJ 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, the shorthand-More speculation is fascinating, I first bumped into it myself last night. It may be "too speculative", but at least it's not my research. The researcher (S. McCarthy) who put this on
her website does demonstrate fairly convincingly IMO, a clear chain of continuity from the Aboriginal syllabaries through Pitman (that one isn't new and is already mentioned on wikipedia and omniglot), and through Isaac Pitman's shorthand predecessors esp. Samuel Taylor's and John Byrom's, going back to John Willis' shorthand sytem of 1602. These shorthand symbols and the syllabary are each demonstrably derived from the earlier models; as McCarthy writes, "in Willis' system 16 symbols out of 22 are identical to the Cree syllabary"
[3] - that's pretty impressive huh? (I think you might have fun at this website!) Then she states: "The system is based on the rotation in four orientations of basic symbols similar to the central 10 symbols in More's Utopian alphabet."
She doesn't get around to illustrating on that particular page, but she does later on other pages, as you can find More's alphabet (and plenty of interesting discussion) here and here, and Willis' 1602 shorthand (that was apparently the granddaddy of Pitman and hence Cree), here. Take care! ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 15:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, now that I'm looking at this a little more carefully, I don't see how she gets "in Willis' system 16 symbols out of 22 are identical to the Cree syllabary", at all. For one thing, Willis' seems to have 26 letters, not 22, and for another, I don't even see any close matches with Cree. Sorry, I should have checked this, but it was way past my bedtime...! Actually, for that matter, now that I look at this, I don't even see any obvious derivation of Evan's Cree symbols from Pitman's syllabic shorthand, but that connection appears as fact in so many places, maybe I'm missing something... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Taylor isn't convincing, but Byrom is: I see 9 or 10 nice correspondances out of 17 early Pitman consonants. Looks like Pitman made them more symmetrical; later versions of Pitman are more symmetrical still. And Byrom shows similarities to the cursive Latin alphabet, though it's hard to know if those are real or coincidence. kwami 19:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I answered your comment on this here: Retroflex_consonant#American_English -- Dennis Valeev 22:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the false section of the hieroglyph article. Since you appear to know what you're doing, can I ask you to check the other large contribution that its author has made? -- Kizor 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
hi. you wouldnt happen to know about Chocó, would you? i am not sure of the extinct languages as there is slightly different info in various sources. – ishwar (speak) 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something in looking through the IPA talk page archives, but since you're the guy who made the change, I was wondering why you have made the change so that, for example, /w/ is "labialized velar" instead of labial-velar. AEuSoes1 09:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
lol. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:
I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia ( talk) 05:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice additions to the etymology, especially the blackwater river link. Well written and researched. - DavidWBrooks 13:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
1.5% of the population in Hong Kong are Indonesians. But like Tagalog, I agree that it's hard to determined whether they're speakers of Bahasa Indonesia or other Indonesian languages. Nepalis and Thais are below 1% of the population, but their communities are highly visible. — Insta ntnood 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Changing the air/err/arr's around was not a problem at all. I've also included some guidelines in that section on my talkpage. — Felix the Cassowary 04:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Some religiously biased users are trying to delete A wife confused for a sister, an article discussing the strikingly similar Abraham&Abimelech (Genesis 20-21), Isaac&Abimelech (Genesis 26), and Pharaoh&Abraham (Genesis 12), incidents where the Abraham/Isaac's wife is confused by Pharaoh/Abimelech for their sister, and a later treaty occurs at Beersheba.
The reason they have given for deletion is "it is entirely based on biblical criticism". I.e. they are trying to have the article deleted because it is based on academic knowledge and not on religiously prejudiced guesswork.
The sources are the JewishEncyclopedia article on Beersheba, and Abimelech (section 3), and also minor aspects of the Sarah, Isaac, Abraham, and Rebekah articles; Israel Finkelstein concerning the archaeology of Beersheba; Friedmann, Noth, etc. (e.g. "Who wrote the Bible") for much of the documentary hypothesis portions.
Would you consider voting on the AFD concerning the article? I would like it kept. --User talk:FDuffy 20:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain WHY the Wikipedia should mis-represent what you yourself described as a political map, as a "geographical subregions" map ?
Hi Kwami, I asked around and was directed to this section of the manual of style. It seems that commas are indeed the Wikipedia standard, in spite of the SI norm. However, the respondent also said that the issue is "hotly disputed". All the best, Jorge Stolfi 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
First, the plural version of a can be as [4], so I undid your deletion of that. Second, in the first sentence of Alternative spellings, you made the word alpha bold, which is stylistically incorrect (italics are generally preferred for words and characters referred to as words and characters, unless they're new) [5]. Finally, your rewording of that sentence was more confusing than previously, so I undid that. I kept your remaining changes, though.
You know, I have to admit that I'm a little pissed off at you for wasting so much of my time on this. It's generally considered rude to make so many changes when you're not positive that what you're doing is correct.
Primetime 09:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I mostly create non-stub articles [6], which you ought to try some time. But, in any case, it looks like you're not enough of a man to admit that you were wrong. I guess also that I should not have been surprised about your edits given this phrase on your own user page: Created, substantially revised, or which ended edit wars. Primetime 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No. The plural of a is as. You originally deleted ās without replacing it and that was one of my disputes. Now, the article looks OK (which is why I didn't undo your most recent edit). Primetime 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove me that www.ethnologue.com is WRONG about the statistics and prove that other statistics are right I'll stop editing the page about esperanto. Until then, ethnologue looks like the most thrusting information source, and, from respect for the truth I'll have to edit it every time I see a wrong no. of speakers listed.
Go to the discussion page of the article. I've added arguments to my editing there. I have not done anyting wrong and see no point to accept an error in an article just because somebody simply WANTS IT SO without bringing me any arguments. I have only EDITED the article, didn't use any revert command. So, please explain and prove me that my no. is wrong and I will not try to make any more changes. But come with valid arguments, not with threats. Gebeleizis.
For a second time you have replaced my contribution with your thoroughly edited (apart from inaccurate) version, on the reason that mine "is badly written; no evidence provided that Aymara treats person as a grid, or how jiwasa is grammatically singular (should be in Aymara article)". Firstly, if you thought my contribution was "badly written", you could just have rephrased it to make it "better written", instead of cutting it down in a way that the central idea is lost. You know, it's not that easy to explain such a different pronoun system to English monolingual speakers. I will now try with a table to make things clearer. Secondly, I don't think the fact that you don't know something and that that something hasn't yet been stated in the article on Aymara (a near-stub that so far is lacking any detailed information on practically every aspect of the language) should be taken as reason enough to take out that information when finally someone adds it somewhere. So you want "evidence"? Did you care to look for it in the first place? It's simple: just google around a bit and learn something about Aymara grammar; the 2×2 pronominal grid that combines the dichotomies of presence/absence of speaker/hearer and the related system of 9 bipersonal verbal suffixes that results from pairing those 4 grammatical persons is one of its central features. For example, you could try reading this: http://www.ilcanet.com/aymara.htm (particularly, chapter VII section 1, and chapter VIIIa sections 1.2 and 3.14). Sure, singular isn't the best description for the unmarked forms —can we agree on unmarked vs. plural instead?—, but on the one hand, it is a common practice in texts intended for the casual reader to prefer the loose use of already-established linguistic labels (like the widespread use of the term declension to name everything from proper case suffixes to enclitic postpositions to plain prepositions), instead of introducing ad hoc or arcane ones that casual readers may be unfamiliar with and might confuse them more than clarify; and on the other hand, the label singular has been used to describe the Aymara unmarked-number pronominal forms for example here: http://www.aymara.org/arusa/intro.php Remember that not all things that are labelled or treated grammatically as singular necessarily refer to one single individual, not even in English (cf. collective nouns like family, team or government that are morphologically singular —and can be pluralized— and generally behave grammatically as such —let's leave aside the ambiguous verbal agreement of collective nouns in certain English dialects—; yet, semantically, they refer to a plurality of individuals). Uaxuctum 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
On a related but different issue, I'm proposing a merge of inclusive we and exclusive we into a unified inclusive and exclusive we article —or inclusive we vs. exclusive we, if you like—, making the former ones into redirects. Most of the information that can be added is going to be duplicate because you cannot talk about one independently from the other (at least as long as English doesn't make a difference between them), and more importantly I don't see any good reason to describe both sides of the same phenomenon each in a separate article; it only makes the explanation fragmentary and doesn't help the reader see the big picture clearly (same reason why I've proposed the merge of seseo and ceceo). Uaxuctum 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I see you reverted my changes on labiodental approximant – the problem is, the information on South Slavic languages about it was wrong all the time. Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, and Macedonian letter V is a voiced labiodental fricative (as it is in Russian language, Bulgarian language and most other). I don't know how it was spread, but it was not accurate – it is pronounced identically as English vase etc, with upper teeth touching the lower lip rather firmly. Duja 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:WritingSystemsoftheWorld.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
Admrboltz ( T | C) 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet with the Proto-Canaanite alphabet. I do not know if the Ugaritic alphabet is considered a descendent of P-C, since the letter shapes are independent anyway. But the South Arabic alphabet certainly isn't. Unlike P-S, P-C is precisely the predecessor of the Canaanite alphabets, to the exclusion of the South Arabic one. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Hope Alan would agree with your changes. — Insta ntnood 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about changing the "I" entry at English alphabet. What happened was I was looking at recent changes for vandalism and saw the edits made by the anon directly before me and I changed that persons edit, which was "ay" for the letter "I" to "eye". Just thought I'd clarify. I'll check edit histories more carefully when I see edits like that from now. Cheers, Qirex 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
According to A Course in Phonology (Roca & Johnson, 186), the vowel in hut is:
Oh, and I took out Canadian English from the list of the central-vowel since on page 173 the authors state "Further north in North America, the accent of Canada can be safely subsumed under the label GA, at least for our present purposes, with the notable exception of..." Canadian Raising. I took out New England since the authors state that the vowel in bird is 604; in eastern New England.
AEuSoes1 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I have an issue with IPA symbols in my browser, and I thought an expert like yourself could help me. When I view an article with IPA symbols in Wikipedia, all of the symbols show up fine, however, when I open the edit page, they don't show up. Can you help me with this?-- ikiroid | ( talk) 00:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm workin' on it.-- ikiroid | ( talk) 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Just saw your changes to Hangul. I don't think it's a good idea to use apostrophes in Korean words in Revised Romanization. If you don't like Jeongeum (the current article name is Hunmin Jeongeum, but the official brochure containing the romanization guidelines spells it Hunminjeongum) and think that -ㄴㄱ- vs. -ㅇㅇ- must be distinguished, just revert to Jeong-eum instead of inserting apostrophes. Alternatively, we could use spellings like Jeong(-)eum in nameboxes to make it clear that either form is correct, or suggest something at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean).— Wikipeditor 13:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kwami,
In your article on East Bird's Head languages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Bird's_Head_languages
you write,
"Many of the features [Wurm] used to identify the various families stocks, such as characteristic personal pronouns, may turn out to be areal features. The Papuan languages have, for example, shown themselves to be adept at borrowing pronouns."
Now, I'll be the first to say that Wurm-Voorhoeve-Laycock etc. classification is generally unreliable, as is the Greenberg classification. I have spent many years determining how and why.
However, in this case it is clear from your review that you have never looked at the languages in question. Meninggo (Moskona) is nearly identical to Meax, and while Manikion is distinct, it shares pronouns, basic vocabulary, and regular sound correspondences and is thus related by any orthodox understanding.
And where do you get "The Papuan languages have, for example, shown themselves to be adept at borrowing pronouns"? Though a cite does not truth make, it would have been nice if you'd included it. As it is, it looks like you're just making this up.
Well, there is one example given in Foley, but it's not very convincing and anyhow involves only two languages out of 700 or so (depending on how you count them) non-Austronesian languages of New Guinea.
Finally, are you sure that Wurm is the source of the East Bird's Head group? Can't say I have the paper trail in front of me, but in Iran Jaya, Wurm is usually following Voorhoeve.
This is only one of several Papuan family articles containing similar types of obscurantist and uncited claims. Simply naming the languages, describing the location and providing a citation would be more informative.
Since there's no point in being a mirror for Ethnologue, I've revised the Papuan articles to reflect Ross's new classification, or at least what I could find of it online. I'm not sure which languages have been left out due to lack of evidence, or whether, say, "Yuat" is used in the broad or narrow sense. If you notice any errors, or can direct me to better sources, please let me know. kwami 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I was hoping you could help me find a Wikipedia article (or other online source) that explains the difference between semivowel [u̯] and the approximant [w]. Or you might be able to give me the basic idea in a few words. Also, is there any difference between semivowel [i̯] and approximant [j]? Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, I appreciate your eagerness to resolve the recent disputes in that article. After your explanation, I think I am fine with the arrangement like "People's Republic of China (Mandarin; Mandarin and Cantonese de facto co-official in Hong Kong and Macau)". - Alanmak 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Original message: Alan, what you've added to the Chinese entry is good information. However, we simply don't have room for that much detail in the language list. There are similar details for every language in every country. Sould we also describe the Mandarin/Taiwanese issue in Taiwan? The official switch to Mandarin in Singapore? The standardized spelling of Cantonese in Chinese communities in Canada and the US? Where's the limit? We would quadruple the size of the article if we followed this level of detail for every language in every country, and it isn't fair to do this only for Chinese in mainland China. For most languages, we haven't even distinguished between national and official languages. You've supplied good info, but it belongs in the articles on China and Chinese, just as the details of other countries and languages belong in their articles. kwami 19:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami,
It would be a huge help if you could point me toward a source or more information for a fact from one of your articles. In the "Middle Bronze Age alphabets" article, you note that, "It is not known if the Egyptians had an alphabetic order, but at least one Egyptian dictionary started with h as the South Semitic order does." Could you point me toward a source or any more information on this Egyptian dictionary and its full letter order? I've tried googling and checked the books in the article's bibliograpny without any luck. It would be very helpful for a project that I am working on. Many thanks in advance. S compton 08:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, and note I said as much on Talk:Proto-Semitic. But all I really did was insert the IPA symbol that was prescribed by the table row/column headers already; I agree we should add a cautionary note to the effect of what you say. dab (ᛏ) 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
...that I did finally add my own user page to my watchlist, and have answered your inquiry. Feel free to erase this edit upon receipt. - TU
Thanks for uploading Image:EL61_and_satellites.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.
Hi Kwami, I don't suppose you could help out with this most recent objection to the Ido article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ido
I'm going to address it myself but I suspect you'd be still better at it than I. Mithridates 09:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I added on most of what Mark objected to, except for the bit about this:
I suppose what I was wondering was whether there are any better terms to use than 'canonical' syllable, complex onsets and that sort of thing. I don't want it to become too technical because that could be an objection from another point of view. I did add quite a bit about the syntax and put in an extra chart describing consonants after his objection, so I think that does adress most of what he was getting at but I thought I'd check with you anyway to see what you thought. Overall though, reaction to the article seems to be pretty good and I'm happy with that. More suggestions this time though than when I submitted it to peer review, which is nice. Mithridates 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
you speak esperanto! a rare thing. what is the language like? the article doesn't really tell you what language it is based upon, or is it simply an amalgamation of the most popular? not that that would be simple. anyway is it worth learning? i would love to learn a language, particually french, but im too lazy and impatient. does esperanto really help? check out my article on language reform, i think it needs the touch of an expert like yourself. mastodon 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
My comment about IPA in Talk:Pronunciation of asteroid names was primarily motivated by the Manual of Style. I suppose that the whole issue of how to represent pronunciation has been discussed many times before. I found that for example, the Wikipedia:Simple pronunciation markup guide was rejected. I thought consistency is important to Wikipedia, and the Manual of Style is here for this reason. Are we supposed to take it serious, or shall we reinvent the rules as we go? I find that inconsistency is one of the many problems wiith Wikipedia. Of course there are others more serious, and I spent a lot of time on one if them, as you know. I would be curious to know what your opinion is about Wikipedia Manual of Style and about consistency in general. I value your opinion as an experienced editor, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am just wondering. I agree on the dialect issue. Andreas 19:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Youn have deleted my refernce to Sango, Thats OK but could you please include some reference to Sango as the Sango page links to here. Jameswilson 23:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. Jameswilson 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Would it be at all possible for you to weigh in at Talk:Table of nations#Requested move. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother you about this, but the sudden appearance of 3 editors on the talk page despite nothing happening for a week makes me suspicious that something underhand is going on. --User talk:FDuffy 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
hi. i finally updated Image:Langs N.Amer.png following most of your suggestions. if you want to comment further, feel free to do so. thanks for making the suggestions. – ishwar (speak) 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hay Kwamikagami, I also like astronomy. I was just reading about how you knew about the batch of names just put in the Uranian system & pluto's two new moons. I think this is cool, I would like to know where you got this info. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk) 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you made an edit to Language talking about chimps. You might be interested in the other 'talking chimp' articles: Koko (gorilla), Kanzi, Washoe, Chantek (there may be others). Whichever side you're on, it would be nice to get some more input :) - FrancisTyers 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Open your PDF file in Adobe Reader, and look for a rightward-pointing triangle just above the vertical scroll bar at the top-right corner area of the window. Click it, and a menu will appear. Select "Preferences", "Page Display", and then "Smooth text". -- Denelson 83 06:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have replied at my talk. Regards, — mark ✎ 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I recall reading here [2] (page 4) that Russian, Irish, and Marshallese contrast palatalization with velarization as if palatalized and plain aren't enough of a contrast so that plain prevocalic consonants become velarized. This isn't a universal occurance in Russian but a frequent one. You can check those sources. If you really disagree with including the velarization marker I suppose it doesn't matter either since marking velarization in Russian is part of narrow transcription
By the way, I hope you haven't forgotten the discussion in talk:close-mid front unrounded vowel; I'd really like to see your sourcing in marking the mid vowels as separate vowels. AEuSoes1 21:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
So Ж and Ш are retroflex and laminal, О is open-mid, /s/ and /z/ are dental, and plain /r/ is postalveolar? I'm all ears. AEuSoes1 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You misspelled "murmured" as "mumured" at the bottom of the image. Denelson 83 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
hi. i have been trying to build up the evidentiality article. if you are interested, perhaps you can review/improve it. peace – ishwar (speak) 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you have a look on what User:Thrax is doing in the article Ancient Greek phonology. Andreas 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Kwami! As you already know, the article has been renamed to Hindu-Arabic numerals. Please keep an eye on it since it is prone to frequent vandalism. deeptrivia ( talk) 07:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thrax is at it again on Ancient Greek phonology, POV pushing without even pretending to look for consensus. I don't know what you told him last time you blocked him, but it was effective for a while. It is annoying and frustrating to be spending one's time defending articles -- especially after User:LukasPietsch and others have contributed so much meaty content -- rather than improving them. -- Macrakis 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thrax made a POV article move. I've tagged the Ancient Greek phonology for speedy delete, please (if you believe I did right) verify it to the admin who'll check it. +MATIA ☎ 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Kwami, I don't understand why we need to tolerate dirty tricks like this. -- Macrakis 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No need to speedy delete, the old name now points to Reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek. Andreas 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've also left a note at Tony Sidaway about it. +MATIA ☎ 23:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Denelson 83 03:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles for the following IPA sounds need data on their linguistic usage and extent, such as examples of words that use those sounds and the languages they are found in, along with whether they are allophonic or phonemic in those words:
[ɳ], [ɴ], [ɖ], [q], [ʡ], [ʂ], [ʐ], [ʝ], [ħ], [ʜ], [ʢ], [ɦ], [ɻ], [ɽ], [ɭ], & [ʟ].
If such information is not provided, I may have to submit these articles for deletion. -- Denelson 83 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, now Thrax has moved Ancient Greek phonology again, against consensus and against the explicit statement by an admin. I suppose we have to start proceedings against him. What a pain. Any advice you have would be welcome. -- Macrakis 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thrax started a POV fork named The historical pronunciation of ancient Greek Andreas 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There's been a discussion on Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences about whether there's a significant difference between "American English" and "British English" (and more specifically, GA and RP) as far as the relationship of schwa and the STRUT vowel is concerned. Some sources (e.g. the OED 3rd edition pronunciation guide) suggest that they're the same phoneme in "AmE" but different in "BrE". Do you have any comments? -- JHJ 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, the shorthand-More speculation is fascinating, I first bumped into it myself last night. It may be "too speculative", but at least it's not my research. The researcher (S. McCarthy) who put this on
her website does demonstrate fairly convincingly IMO, a clear chain of continuity from the Aboriginal syllabaries through Pitman (that one isn't new and is already mentioned on wikipedia and omniglot), and through Isaac Pitman's shorthand predecessors esp. Samuel Taylor's and John Byrom's, going back to John Willis' shorthand sytem of 1602. These shorthand symbols and the syllabary are each demonstrably derived from the earlier models; as McCarthy writes, "in Willis' system 16 symbols out of 22 are identical to the Cree syllabary"
[3] - that's pretty impressive huh? (I think you might have fun at this website!) Then she states: "The system is based on the rotation in four orientations of basic symbols similar to the central 10 symbols in More's Utopian alphabet."
She doesn't get around to illustrating on that particular page, but she does later on other pages, as you can find More's alphabet (and plenty of interesting discussion) here and here, and Willis' 1602 shorthand (that was apparently the granddaddy of Pitman and hence Cree), here. Take care! ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 15:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, now that I'm looking at this a little more carefully, I don't see how she gets "in Willis' system 16 symbols out of 22 are identical to the Cree syllabary", at all. For one thing, Willis' seems to have 26 letters, not 22, and for another, I don't even see any close matches with Cree. Sorry, I should have checked this, but it was way past my bedtime...! Actually, for that matter, now that I look at this, I don't even see any obvious derivation of Evan's Cree symbols from Pitman's syllabic shorthand, but that connection appears as fact in so many places, maybe I'm missing something... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Taylor isn't convincing, but Byrom is: I see 9 or 10 nice correspondances out of 17 early Pitman consonants. Looks like Pitman made them more symmetrical; later versions of Pitman are more symmetrical still. And Byrom shows similarities to the cursive Latin alphabet, though it's hard to know if those are real or coincidence. kwami 19:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I answered your comment on this here: Retroflex_consonant#American_English -- Dennis Valeev 22:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the false section of the hieroglyph article. Since you appear to know what you're doing, can I ask you to check the other large contribution that its author has made? -- Kizor 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
hi. you wouldnt happen to know about Chocó, would you? i am not sure of the extinct languages as there is slightly different info in various sources. – ishwar (speak) 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something in looking through the IPA talk page archives, but since you're the guy who made the change, I was wondering why you have made the change so that, for example, /w/ is "labialized velar" instead of labial-velar. AEuSoes1 09:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
lol. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:
I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia ( talk) 05:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice additions to the etymology, especially the blackwater river link. Well written and researched. - DavidWBrooks 13:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
1.5% of the population in Hong Kong are Indonesians. But like Tagalog, I agree that it's hard to determined whether they're speakers of Bahasa Indonesia or other Indonesian languages. Nepalis and Thais are below 1% of the population, but their communities are highly visible. — Insta ntnood 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Changing the air/err/arr's around was not a problem at all. I've also included some guidelines in that section on my talkpage. — Felix the Cassowary 04:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Some religiously biased users are trying to delete A wife confused for a sister, an article discussing the strikingly similar Abraham&Abimelech (Genesis 20-21), Isaac&Abimelech (Genesis 26), and Pharaoh&Abraham (Genesis 12), incidents where the Abraham/Isaac's wife is confused by Pharaoh/Abimelech for their sister, and a later treaty occurs at Beersheba.
The reason they have given for deletion is "it is entirely based on biblical criticism". I.e. they are trying to have the article deleted because it is based on academic knowledge and not on religiously prejudiced guesswork.
The sources are the JewishEncyclopedia article on Beersheba, and Abimelech (section 3), and also minor aspects of the Sarah, Isaac, Abraham, and Rebekah articles; Israel Finkelstein concerning the archaeology of Beersheba; Friedmann, Noth, etc. (e.g. "Who wrote the Bible") for much of the documentary hypothesis portions.
Would you consider voting on the AFD concerning the article? I would like it kept. --User talk:FDuffy 20:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain WHY the Wikipedia should mis-represent what you yourself described as a political map, as a "geographical subregions" map ?
Hi Kwami, I asked around and was directed to this section of the manual of style. It seems that commas are indeed the Wikipedia standard, in spite of the SI norm. However, the respondent also said that the issue is "hotly disputed". All the best, Jorge Stolfi 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
First, the plural version of a can be as [4], so I undid your deletion of that. Second, in the first sentence of Alternative spellings, you made the word alpha bold, which is stylistically incorrect (italics are generally preferred for words and characters referred to as words and characters, unless they're new) [5]. Finally, your rewording of that sentence was more confusing than previously, so I undid that. I kept your remaining changes, though.
You know, I have to admit that I'm a little pissed off at you for wasting so much of my time on this. It's generally considered rude to make so many changes when you're not positive that what you're doing is correct.
Primetime 09:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I mostly create non-stub articles [6], which you ought to try some time. But, in any case, it looks like you're not enough of a man to admit that you were wrong. I guess also that I should not have been surprised about your edits given this phrase on your own user page: Created, substantially revised, or which ended edit wars. Primetime 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No. The plural of a is as. You originally deleted ās without replacing it and that was one of my disputes. Now, the article looks OK (which is why I didn't undo your most recent edit). Primetime 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove me that www.ethnologue.com is WRONG about the statistics and prove that other statistics are right I'll stop editing the page about esperanto. Until then, ethnologue looks like the most thrusting information source, and, from respect for the truth I'll have to edit it every time I see a wrong no. of speakers listed.
Go to the discussion page of the article. I've added arguments to my editing there. I have not done anyting wrong and see no point to accept an error in an article just because somebody simply WANTS IT SO without bringing me any arguments. I have only EDITED the article, didn't use any revert command. So, please explain and prove me that my no. is wrong and I will not try to make any more changes. But come with valid arguments, not with threats. Gebeleizis.
For a second time you have replaced my contribution with your thoroughly edited (apart from inaccurate) version, on the reason that mine "is badly written; no evidence provided that Aymara treats person as a grid, or how jiwasa is grammatically singular (should be in Aymara article)". Firstly, if you thought my contribution was "badly written", you could just have rephrased it to make it "better written", instead of cutting it down in a way that the central idea is lost. You know, it's not that easy to explain such a different pronoun system to English monolingual speakers. I will now try with a table to make things clearer. Secondly, I don't think the fact that you don't know something and that that something hasn't yet been stated in the article on Aymara (a near-stub that so far is lacking any detailed information on practically every aspect of the language) should be taken as reason enough to take out that information when finally someone adds it somewhere. So you want "evidence"? Did you care to look for it in the first place? It's simple: just google around a bit and learn something about Aymara grammar; the 2×2 pronominal grid that combines the dichotomies of presence/absence of speaker/hearer and the related system of 9 bipersonal verbal suffixes that results from pairing those 4 grammatical persons is one of its central features. For example, you could try reading this: http://www.ilcanet.com/aymara.htm (particularly, chapter VII section 1, and chapter VIIIa sections 1.2 and 3.14). Sure, singular isn't the best description for the unmarked forms —can we agree on unmarked vs. plural instead?—, but on the one hand, it is a common practice in texts intended for the casual reader to prefer the loose use of already-established linguistic labels (like the widespread use of the term declension to name everything from proper case suffixes to enclitic postpositions to plain prepositions), instead of introducing ad hoc or arcane ones that casual readers may be unfamiliar with and might confuse them more than clarify; and on the other hand, the label singular has been used to describe the Aymara unmarked-number pronominal forms for example here: http://www.aymara.org/arusa/intro.php Remember that not all things that are labelled or treated grammatically as singular necessarily refer to one single individual, not even in English (cf. collective nouns like family, team or government that are morphologically singular —and can be pluralized— and generally behave grammatically as such —let's leave aside the ambiguous verbal agreement of collective nouns in certain English dialects—; yet, semantically, they refer to a plurality of individuals). Uaxuctum 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
On a related but different issue, I'm proposing a merge of inclusive we and exclusive we into a unified inclusive and exclusive we article —or inclusive we vs. exclusive we, if you like—, making the former ones into redirects. Most of the information that can be added is going to be duplicate because you cannot talk about one independently from the other (at least as long as English doesn't make a difference between them), and more importantly I don't see any good reason to describe both sides of the same phenomenon each in a separate article; it only makes the explanation fragmentary and doesn't help the reader see the big picture clearly (same reason why I've proposed the merge of seseo and ceceo). Uaxuctum 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I see you reverted my changes on labiodental approximant – the problem is, the information on South Slavic languages about it was wrong all the time. Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, and Macedonian letter V is a voiced labiodental fricative (as it is in Russian language, Bulgarian language and most other). I don't know how it was spread, but it was not accurate – it is pronounced identically as English vase etc, with upper teeth touching the lower lip rather firmly. Duja 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:WritingSystemsoftheWorld.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
Admrboltz ( T | C) 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet with the Proto-Canaanite alphabet. I do not know if the Ugaritic alphabet is considered a descendent of P-C, since the letter shapes are independent anyway. But the South Arabic alphabet certainly isn't. Unlike P-S, P-C is precisely the predecessor of the Canaanite alphabets, to the exclusion of the South Arabic one. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Hope Alan would agree with your changes. — Insta ntnood 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about changing the "I" entry at English alphabet. What happened was I was looking at recent changes for vandalism and saw the edits made by the anon directly before me and I changed that persons edit, which was "ay" for the letter "I" to "eye". Just thought I'd clarify. I'll check edit histories more carefully when I see edits like that from now. Cheers, Qirex 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
According to A Course in Phonology (Roca & Johnson, 186), the vowel in hut is:
Oh, and I took out Canadian English from the list of the central-vowel since on page 173 the authors state "Further north in North America, the accent of Canada can be safely subsumed under the label GA, at least for our present purposes, with the notable exception of..." Canadian Raising. I took out New England since the authors state that the vowel in bird is 604; in eastern New England.
AEuSoes1 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I have an issue with IPA symbols in my browser, and I thought an expert like yourself could help me. When I view an article with IPA symbols in Wikipedia, all of the symbols show up fine, however, when I open the edit page, they don't show up. Can you help me with this?-- ikiroid | ( talk) 00:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm workin' on it.-- ikiroid | ( talk) 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Just saw your changes to Hangul. I don't think it's a good idea to use apostrophes in Korean words in Revised Romanization. If you don't like Jeongeum (the current article name is Hunmin Jeongeum, but the official brochure containing the romanization guidelines spells it Hunminjeongum) and think that -ㄴㄱ- vs. -ㅇㅇ- must be distinguished, just revert to Jeong-eum instead of inserting apostrophes. Alternatively, we could use spellings like Jeong(-)eum in nameboxes to make it clear that either form is correct, or suggest something at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean).— Wikipeditor 13:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kwami,
In your article on East Bird's Head languages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Bird's_Head_languages
you write,
"Many of the features [Wurm] used to identify the various families stocks, such as characteristic personal pronouns, may turn out to be areal features. The Papuan languages have, for example, shown themselves to be adept at borrowing pronouns."
Now, I'll be the first to say that Wurm-Voorhoeve-Laycock etc. classification is generally unreliable, as is the Greenberg classification. I have spent many years determining how and why.
However, in this case it is clear from your review that you have never looked at the languages in question. Meninggo (Moskona) is nearly identical to Meax, and while Manikion is distinct, it shares pronouns, basic vocabulary, and regular sound correspondences and is thus related by any orthodox understanding.
And where do you get "The Papuan languages have, for example, shown themselves to be adept at borrowing pronouns"? Though a cite does not truth make, it would have been nice if you'd included it. As it is, it looks like you're just making this up.
Well, there is one example given in Foley, but it's not very convincing and anyhow involves only two languages out of 700 or so (depending on how you count them) non-Austronesian languages of New Guinea.
Finally, are you sure that Wurm is the source of the East Bird's Head group? Can't say I have the paper trail in front of me, but in Iran Jaya, Wurm is usually following Voorhoeve.
This is only one of several Papuan family articles containing similar types of obscurantist and uncited claims. Simply naming the languages, describing the location and providing a citation would be more informative.
Since there's no point in being a mirror for Ethnologue, I've revised the Papuan articles to reflect Ross's new classification, or at least what I could find of it online. I'm not sure which languages have been left out due to lack of evidence, or whether, say, "Yuat" is used in the broad or narrow sense. If you notice any errors, or can direct me to better sources, please let me know. kwami 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, I was hoping you could help me find a Wikipedia article (or other online source) that explains the difference between semivowel [u̯] and the approximant [w]. Or you might be able to give me the basic idea in a few words. Also, is there any difference between semivowel [i̯] and approximant [j]? Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, I appreciate your eagerness to resolve the recent disputes in that article. After your explanation, I think I am fine with the arrangement like "People's Republic of China (Mandarin; Mandarin and Cantonese de facto co-official in Hong Kong and Macau)". - Alanmak 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Original message: Alan, what you've added to the Chinese entry is good information. However, we simply don't have room for that much detail in the language list. There are similar details for every language in every country. Sould we also describe the Mandarin/Taiwanese issue in Taiwan? The official switch to Mandarin in Singapore? The standardized spelling of Cantonese in Chinese communities in Canada and the US? Where's the limit? We would quadruple the size of the article if we followed this level of detail for every language in every country, and it isn't fair to do this only for Chinese in mainland China. For most languages, we haven't even distinguished between national and official languages. You've supplied good info, but it belongs in the articles on China and Chinese, just as the details of other countries and languages belong in their articles. kwami 19:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kwamikagami,
It would be a huge help if you could point me toward a source or more information for a fact from one of your articles. In the "Middle Bronze Age alphabets" article, you note that, "It is not known if the Egyptians had an alphabetic order, but at least one Egyptian dictionary started with h as the South Semitic order does." Could you point me toward a source or any more information on this Egyptian dictionary and its full letter order? I've tried googling and checked the books in the article's bibliograpny without any luck. It would be very helpful for a project that I am working on. Many thanks in advance. S compton 08:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, and note I said as much on Talk:Proto-Semitic. But all I really did was insert the IPA symbol that was prescribed by the table row/column headers already; I agree we should add a cautionary note to the effect of what you say. dab (ᛏ) 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
...that I did finally add my own user page to my watchlist, and have answered your inquiry. Feel free to erase this edit upon receipt. - TU
Thanks for uploading Image:EL61_and_satellites.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.