User talk:Evertype/Archive 2

Inuktitut

Hello, I've been curious about the layout of the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics for some time. Diderot suggested I should ask you about it. Is there a specific order in which the codes were assigned? I haven't seen any obvious pattern to them. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 20:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bliss symbols

The image was 1) more than 7 days old 2) had no copyright in the english or french wikis, nor the commons. Therefor it is a speedy deletion candidate and will not be undeleted. However, it should be trivial to find an image that does meet our copyright rules. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic alphabet creator

Do you have sources that Cyrillic alphabet is not created by Climent of Ohrid? From what I know everybody agrees that Cyrilic is created by Cliement. There may be disagreement, however, where it was created and to what ethnos he was belonging to.

Hi Evertype. I'm honestly tired by Nedko's attitude, he's starting edit-wars and creating new problems every day. Today he's been edit-warring on a POV-tag just because he's got a dispute over a category. Do you find this to be normal editing-behaviour? Miskin 01:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, he's now violated 4RR. Miskin 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, yes, I think he is not being a very good citizen, and I don't find his behaviour to be all that normal. I'm working on Saints Cyril and Methodius Day and trying to keep it agreeable. Evertype 08:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ga revert war

There is a Revert war on ga:, since you are a admin over there, I think you should step in Fabhcún 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudian-letters.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Claudian-letters.jpg, 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. I added it as it is now obsolete to Image:Claudian letters.svg. You will notice that I (seemingly as you did) used Times New Roman. However, I instead tagged it {{PD-ineligible}} as I am quite sure this is not eligible for copyright. Maybe I'm wrong, so if you disagree, please just let me know. Thank you. ^Рэд _хот 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudian letters (again)

Just wondering, as you added that the Claudian letters were accepted as an addition to Unicode, would I be correct in assuming that the proposed Unicode numbers (2132, 214E, 2183, 2184, 2C75 and 2C76) are the ones assigned? Also, could you just confirm you have no problems with the tagging of the SVG of the letters (I just like to make sure of these things)? -^Рэд _хот 12:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the question about the numbers assigned was to add to the article. The image is IFD'd because I made an SVG. That's the only thing wrong (well not wrong, just SVG has a clear advantage). As far as I can tell the SVG is identical anyway (just it's a vector instead of a raster). I would assume you'd agree an SVG is more suitable for this use. No? Oh and yes, it was me that IFD'd it since I made the SVG. (the SVG is 3KB smaller, and being an SVG, can be scaled, in theory, to infinity) - ^Рэд _хот 10:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stacked diacritics

hello Michael, I have a Unicode question: do you know why in Latin Extended Additional there is "e macron acute" (1e17) and "o macron acute" (1e53), but no corresponding precomposed encodings for a, i or u? Are these forthcoming in a later version? I am trying to fix accent placement in text processing by adding precomposed glyphs with stacked accents to a typeface. It appears, then, that I'll just define the 1e17 glyph as additionally being a ligature of "e+0304+0301", while for "a+0304+0301" I'll define a 'ligature' with no unicode value. Is that approach at all sensible? regards, dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why only those are encoded, and no, there will be no more precomposed vowels encoded. Evertype 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's sensible; all those 'precomposed' characters and ligatures strike me as quite beside the point of Unicode in the first place, not to mention their unsystematic arrangement. dab (ᛏ) 13:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Claudian letters.svg

I've left a reply there. Bye, Shinobu 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwich'in and that apostrophe issue

Can you provide more background regarding the use of U+2019 character in the logonym/ethnonym Gwich'in on Gwich'in and Gwich'in language? As far as I know, all other Athabaskan languages make use of the standard apostrophe to indicate ejective consonants in the practical orthography. (Some early scientific orthographies use other conventions, including a stacked diacritic.) In what sense is this U+2019 character more "correct"? Is this usage specific to NWT? Can you provide some references? I'm by no means an expert on fonts, but I worry that use of this U+2019 character will lead to lots of inconsistencies in the representation of Athabaskan languages. --Gholton 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take my source for the use of U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE from Chris Harvey's web site. Chris works with aboriginal communities in Canada and I accept his judgement on orthography. I don't use U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK for Gwichʼin, though it is certainly preferable to U+0027 APOSTROPHE, which is a typewriter character. Evertype 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I meant to say U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE. While I appreciate Chris' work, wouldn't it be better to consult more official sources. There are many official language bodies for Gwich'in and Dene/Athabaskan across NTW, Yukon, BC, and Alaska. I would be happy to research this, if you like. But as I noted, both the Alaska Native Language Center and Yukon Native Language Centre use a regular apostrophe for Gwich'in (i.e., U+0027). I agree that this is not necessarily pretty (yes, it's a typewriter character). But it is empowering for Gwich'in people to be able to type easily (as on a typewriter) rather than having to look for characters in the upper code pages.

Again, I would emphasize that this issue goes way beyond just the name Gwich'in. Ejective consants appear all over the Athbaskan/Dene world, and if we want to add in more language information, we will need to tediously add in the U+02BC charcter in many places in order to be consistent. Moreoever, I have checked these pages with the U+02BC from a number of computer in couple locations in Alaska, and I can report that in many cases the character does not display properly or does not display at all. Yes, it's true. Many people are still using browsers which do not support unicode. It would indeed be ironic if our quest for correct characters were to end up disenfranchising the very people whose language we are representing here. --Gholton 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take the discussion to Talk:Gwichʼin. Evertype 08:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caron

Random news. Someone just edited my talk page regarding an entry made on the caron talk page. Considering that a) I'd never edited caron, and b) the comments raised seem to be more reflective of your (self-censoring of a quite poetic eliptical descriptive phrase) style, I'm guessing the anon meant to respond to you, clicked on your recent contributions to see what other kids of (more self-deleting adjectives) updates you've made, and then clicked on my talk page instead of yours. samwaltz 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

İlham Əliyev

I thank you very much for your vote on this page. It helps me, because this issue was important for me. As you may know (or not), I wrote a message to a lot of Turkish speaker users to alert them on the issue. All my messages in their talk pages were erased by User:Theresa knott who has decided I have no right to communicate to them. Vive Wikipédia libre! Švitrigaila 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your "spamming", you should have been warned a more gently, I think. The think you did is not correct. You are free to solicit wikipedians for a vote, but you better copy a part of the WP:STRAW guideline. A typical invite I would use is:

Survey etiquette

If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.

Good: "Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help"

There is a discussion on whatever, would you please mind joining? 85.70.5.66 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can state your POV in the discussion, not in the soliciting. 85.70.5.66 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reply on caron

I appologize for the mass reply, however I am frustrated the vote just got bombarded with votes most of which neither followed the discussion, nor had any idea of the arguments for or against the háček (or caron). 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to English

Yes I agree that revert to English is the wrong phrase to use - that is why I, despite what you say in the edit history, did not put it back in the last time i rv'd it. On the previous edit it was an oversight on my part (I'm sorry!) that 'reverted' went back into the line at the same time as I put the {{fact}} template that you removed. Please can you tell me why it is unreasonable to ask for a reference for a fact in the article? - we are trying to make the article better and a reference makes the whole thing more solid - I'm sorry that you seem to have taken exception to this. I have put the sentence back the way it was, as it is more concise and encyclopedic. take care Mammal4 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Railway Corridor revert

Why did you revert an edit by IP user 194.106.155.218 on the Western Railway Corridor page? His edit dropped some ramblings chunks of badly formatted quotes. Would you prefer if these paragraphs were replaced with NPOV summaries? Or are you happy with the text as it stands? e.g. this quote:

However IBEC’s representative in the North-West, last year made a very positive written contribution to Mr. Pat McCann, the Chairman of the Working Group on the WRC. The IBEC Regional Development Officer has confirmed and reiterated their strong support for the project.

When asked recently by Pat Kenny for examples of what he felt our immediate planning and infrastructural priorities in Ireland should be, the head of the Irish Planning Institute, Mr. Henk Van der Kamp began his response by saying: “We should re-open the Western Rail Corridor immediately.”

Responding to the negative remarks of Mr. Reg McCabe of IBEC, a spokesman for West on Track said:

A more instructive example might be the re-opened Ennis-Limerick section which is actually part of the WRC, and which has carried huge numbers of passengers since 2003. Crucially there are seven trains each day and modern rolling stock. Clearly, if you have a small number of services and ageing rolling stock, as is the case with Limerick-Rosslare, you will inevitably have lower numbers travelling, especially if passengers are obliged to change trains en route.

It also seems extraordinary to suggest that the linking of Galway and Limerick, the 3rd and 4th largest cities of the state by rail would not deliver value for money. No one would sensibly suggest that the Dart, though heavily subsidised, is a waste of money. Rather it is an essential piece of national infrastructure. All modes of transport require subsidy. What parameters are used to measure the value for money delivered by roads?

In our view the Government is to be commended for taking a NATIONAL view of the development of infrastructure and looking to the future in terms of planning for the WHOLE country.

It is generally accepted that the Western region has lagged behind in terms of infrastructural investment.

In terms of connectivity, linking Galway and Sligo by rail to Limerick and Cork makes perfect sense, especially since the basic infrastructure is already in place and the property already in state ownership.

Balanced regional development and the implementation of the National Spatial strategy are the cornerstones of Government policy and the logical basis for the re-opening of the Western Rail Corridor.

However the Report does urge the Minister to form an Implementation Group whose deliberations would by necessity encompass these issues.

Curtains99 17:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems I see with the above text include:

no sources for any of the quotes (a spokesman said / when asked by Pat Kenny)
no formatting to differentiate between article text and quoted text (hard to read)
quotes are too long and rambling (miles of text to cover random opinions on a report)
amateur POV feel to the whole thingb (quotes seem selective rather than a summary of opinion and are interlaced with POV narration has confirmed and reiterated their strong support )

I don't revert reverts; I'd prefer you to make the changes or undo your revert. Thanks Curtains99 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'd missed the grammatical errors re-introduced by this edit. The fact that the subject is controversial makes it a candidate for an interesting article. If both POVs are explained without using the loaded jargon of either side, then the article will be useful. The map is good. The article should contain:

definition
description
feasibility controversy (arguments for both sides briefly detailed)
project timeline

Long ministerial quotes and the like can be linked to if relevant or else summarised. Curtains99 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all

Guinness isn't even that great. --NEMT 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically I prefer Smithwicks. Evertype 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for your expertise

Official languages of India has a nonexistant article for Shekhavati, the language. I'm sure you know more about it than just about anybody on Wikipedia. Care to give it a go? (Unsigned comment by SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I am not an expert in all the languages of the world. I am an expert in the world's writing systems. Evertype 12:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]