User talk:Imz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, {{subst:PAGENAME}}, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask me, check the help pages, or add {{helpme}} to this page, and someone'll be along shortly.

Happy editing! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 00:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] wikisource

please have a look to your talk page at wikisource, thanks, -jkb- 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:R with possibilities

Hello, you commented here that the title seemed strange to you. I've proposed a rename at TfD. Your feedback would be welcome there. Shawnc 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implicature

I think I am going to try to work on this article. But I noticed you objected to its factual content. I am hoping you can elaborate? Thanks, - Abscissa 20:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ishk redirect

Hi. You created a dead redirect for Ishk. Can you fix it? Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 05:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice!--Imz 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinyin Template (Translit-zh2)

Regarding Template:Translit-zh2, which is inherited by almost all templates using pinyin, you put lang="zh-Latin". As far as I know it is a constructed syntax. Pinyin is defined in ISO:639 as "pny". (Voidvector 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

What do you mean by "constructed"? lang="zh-Latn" (NB: Latn!) is actually according to ISO 15924.
I didn't know there was the special pny, probably the best thing is to use that one at this place. Thanks for bringing it up.--Imz 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0 uses Chinese font to display "zh-Latin" text. The Latin characters in Chinese fonts are commonly uglier than those found in say Verdana/Times New Roman/etc. (Voidvector 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

I guess that's actually a problem of either Firefox or of the Wikipedia stylesheets -- so, the best place to fix it is there (in one of these stylesheets), because logically the lang attribute value (lang="zh-Latn") is perfect.--Imz 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked around and found that the common Japanese template, Template:Nihongo, does not give romaji a language at all. I was wondering if you object me removing the language tag for pinyin in Translit-zh2. --Voidvector 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a drawback of that template that it doesn't specify the language. It is possible to specify the language written in a non-standard script in a correct way. So, specifying it would never hurt the mark-up, just give advantages for automatic processing. If styles are imperfect, they should be fixed.
No, I wouldn't object. That's the way of trying to make it best. Although, I would envisage other ways of fixing the problem (I mentioned them: fixing the stylesheets, perhaps,adding a style-attribute to that template).
But in this case we probbaly have the simplest solution: use the special pinyin code you mentioneda above. I'm performing the change right now. What do you think of it?--Imz 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Pny" does fix it on my machine. I see this as a shortcoming of the lang tag implementation, since most implementation only takes into account language/region not the writing system. Given it uses one of those 3-letter abbrevs, most (if not all) browsers probably have no clue what it is and just ignored it.
You mentioned using CSS to fix it. I am not sure actually sure where to bring this up. If you can tell me where can I go to give suggestions on changing the CSS, it would be great. Thanks plenty. --Voidvector 08:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IAST1

Hello. I noticed that you have worked on Template:IAST1 and I was not clear on what benefits there may be for using that tag. I am sure you created it for a reason, and I look forward to learning more about it. I have placed a question about this on the talk page for Template:IAST1. The background of my interest in this is that currently within the Hinduism project there is a lack of standardization on use of IAST, and some previous threads related to this are refactored at: User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. I would welcome any thoughts you have on these matters, as the goal is to update the style standards. Buddhipriya 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

answered there Template talk:IAST1#What is the benefit of the tag?--Imz 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hebrew

It's a great template, I use it often. Is there away to make the size setting a default like it is now, AND a variable. I need it bigger on Hebrew alphabet so I ended up justing coding it in each line, it was very painful and I still got to do Yiddish alphabet. I much prefer to use the tamplate (or make a new template with a bigger font size, but I seam to think this is possible to do within the existing template, is this true?) Epson291 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

answered there Template talk:Hebrew#Changing the size--Imz 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer Epson291 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speex codec

This is just a quick message to say that I've moved your question about the Speex codec to this talk page, as you're far more likely to receive a reply. -Panser Born- (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Imz 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Flag

Privjet. You created Category:Flag as a redirect to Category:Flags. Categories should not be hard-redirected, as with the current software, this causes problems. In most cases redirects to categories should be deleted, and in this case I have nominated the category for speedy deletion. In the rare case that a redirect to a category is absolutely necessary, it must be done as a soft redirect. For more information see Template talk:Category redirect. —Tox 10:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. It's a pity, of course.--Imz 11:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian phonology

Thanks for helping out with this edit. I'm undoing this edit because, as far as I can tell, the common Common/Proto Slavonic representation of nasal vowels is with the ogonek. I've seen the yers represented with the cyrillic letters, which isn't "crazy" (okay it is, but it's still pretty common) but isn't my favorite way. Maybe you could discuss this with User:Ivan Štambuk, who seems to have opposed my representing the yers with breved i and u at Proto-Slavic language. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, by "crazy" I just called the mixture of two and repetition, or whatever it was: ĭь. As for the choice of signs, I have no opinion and don't care as long as they are understandable. Of course, if they were consistently used throughout Wikipedia, that would be also good. So I wouldn't consider your edit as an undo, but rather as a further improvement, if you have reasons for your choice of signs--Imz (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And when I was doing that fix, I had to make a choice which notation to use and I had a thought like this: ok, the Old Church Slavonic line is written completely in Cyrillic, if this line ends up being just a transliteration (again, with cryptic signs like ǫ, ь understandable only by professionals), what will the value it adds to the article be? No added value for an average reader. So, I decided to be more IPA-like so that an average reader would get better understanding what the ideas about that reconstruction are like. I hadn't looked at other places, so I might break consistency of the notation, of course. So I expected someone to fix it, if it happened.--Imz (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian alphabet

мыслѣте is transcribed as [ˈmɨ.sʲlʲɪ.tʲɪ] because modern Russian has lost the yat phoneme. It does not distinguish between ѣ and е. In unstressed syllables, /e/ (written as either е or э) merges with /i/ and is pronounced as [ɪ] after soft consonants. This is basic uncontroversial phonologial knowledge about Russian and, if your source contradicts the scholarly sources, then your source is wrong. This, and the fact that it's unnecessary to source every transcription we make of Russian words prompted me to remove the sources altogether. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the dictionary entries. The name of the letter is a separate word with a stress different than in any modern finite verb form.
Have you even tried to understand what kind of source I'm referring to before saying "if your source contradicts the scholarly sources, then your source is wrong"? That's not "my" source, that's one of the standard dictionaries of Russian language Russia and Soviet Union have been using.
Pay more attention to contributions by other people. You seem to be overconfident that they are garbage even without considering them closely.--Imz (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your flaw was the following: Before applying your knowledge of Russian phonology, you should have figured out which morphological form this is (at least, to put the stress correctly). And surprise! The modern verb forms have an и (мыслите (you.Plural), мыслите (Imperative)), not a е (which would reflect the old-orthography ѣ). That should tell one one should consult a dictionary.
So, I'd recommend you to discuss things before reverting to "your" variants: there might be flaws in your understanding of things. But in this case, even a discussion wasn't necessary: I gave the sufficient references, and if you respected this contribution and paid attention to what was meant, you would see the reason for the correction.--Imz (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "the fact that it's unnecessary to source every transcription we make of Russian words". Now it's evident it's not true. Simply because these transcriptions caused ths discussion. I was sure the notes with references make a contribution to the ease of verification, because, as a reader, I would find these notes helpful even to me, a native Russian speaker: these words are not in my active lexicon, and a link to a respected dictionary is very handy in this case, if I want to be sure about the transcriptions.--Imz (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That the modern form is мыслите reenforces what I said about the pronunciation. If you're trying to say that the stress is on the middle syllable then it would be [mɨˈsʲlʲe.tʲɪ] (notice where I've put the stress marker). Again, this is only for modern pronunciation; if we're going to do non-modern pronunciation, we'll have to do a lot of research. Also, you said "that's not 'my' source..." but it's the source you're using, so in that sense it is your source. Either way, the source that you are using seems to contradict the understanding of Russian phonology that I've seen everywhere in the literature I've read (unless you simply overlook the movement of the stress marker). If you say that these are uncommon words (which I didn't know before hand) then I can see how that would justify citing the pronunciations of these words and not others. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "If you're trying to say that the stress is on the middle syllable then it would be [mɨˈsʲlʲe.tʲɪ] (notice where I've put the stress marker)". Absolutely. Just notice where I put the stress marker: [1], [2].
That's not what only I am trying to say, that's how it is written in the dictionary and I wanted to contribute this knowledge to the article, because it would make it better.--Imz (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And a general note that is not relevant for our "conflict" (although I do not see any conflict, just a neglect to read from your side), but which refutes the statement in your reply. You wrote: "That the modern form is мыслите reenforces what I said about the pronunciation". No, the modern spelling couldn't reenforce your point, because what you did was just quote the common knowledge about Russian phonology+phonetics (the reduction), but Russian spelling is not designed to reflect the reduction processes. So, wherever the modern spelling or the Church Slavonic spelling have emerged from, it wasn't from the reduction laws you cited.--Imz (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "Also, you said "that's not 'my' source..." but it's the source you're using". I wanted to say that it has also been the authoritative source for most people dealing with Russian. --Imz (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)