User talk:Evertype/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Ç origine

Usted dice:

fr:Cédille is incorrect. The origin is the Visigothic z, which looked like ʒ but had the topber shaped like a small c. As time went on, it got reanalyzed to c + squiggle. That was after the Carolingian z was introduced to Iberia. I do have it on my plate to write this up with examples in due course, but I am busy right now. Evertype 14:08, August 8, 2005

Voy a dirigirme a usted en español visto que mi nivel de inglés no me permite aun redactar lo que deseo preguntarle con la misma destreza. Sin embargo no dude en contestarme en inglés si lo prefiere. Mi pregunta està relacionada con el tema al que ha contestado sobre el origen de la Ç. Si anhelo tanto conocer el origen de este caracter es porque aquí suele estar envuelto en un cierto misterio. En las enciclopedias españolas a las que he tenido en mis manos se menciona tan apenas esta letra visto su ausencia en nuestra ortografía actual, y en los tratados catalanes a los que he tenido acceso hasta ahora no se suele mencionar demasiado el tema. Supongo que es porquè si tiene algún origen español, para un catalán aférrimo es mejor no aludirlo. Además me interesaría saber cuando mencionamos a los visígodos de que lengua estaríamos hablando (¿alguna germánica?) y cuando habla usted de la z carolingia, ¿estaríamos ya hablando de un latín avanzado, o se trataría de textos en español?

Por favor contácteme en la enciclopedia catalana y dirigase en inglés, español o francés, lo que le sea más cómodo. Thanks!

—Ludor (My talk) 22:53, 8 August 2005

Specimen file

Hi Evertype, sure, Do you want a Quark file? Where to send it? CApitol3 (talk)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Please, please, please keep up the good work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration on the naming poll. Your mounting exasperation at the various objections has made my Friday! I haven't laughed as much for months! Have you taken to biting the carpet yet? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but what exactly is the purpose of this 'contribution'? Keep 'the good faith' or don't bother. RashersTierney (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I gather the purpose of Skinsmoke's contribution was either (1) to encourage me to press on even in the face of saboteurs, or (2) to mock me for attempting to treat the topic seriously at get a move on. I prefer the former explanation. -- Evertype·✆ 06:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it was the former. After all, haven't we all been in a similar position on Wikipedia from time to time? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies all round if I misread sarcasm for irony. RashersTierney (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Skinsmoke. Would you mind going here and leaving your opinion of the discussion (that discussion, not this one)? -- Evertype·✆ 12:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Think I'll leave it up to you guys. Personally, I think you've done an excellent job in the face of some people seemingly arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't have a problem with either your suggestion or the one from User:Masem. I really don't have a preference for one over the other. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The change I made was a very simple one and did balance both entries. Its a good job so far, pity to spoil it by showing bias to one solution. I also note that practice has been to edit the statement directly (you commented on the lack of edits) --Snowded TALK 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For most of today controversial and delicate edits have been discussed on Talk. -- Evertype·✆ 20:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Announcement of poll

Looks like I'm too late to have any more say on the ballot paper, but can you please have a look at this recent post of mine and give it serious consideration before the notices are sent out. My internet access is being severely disrupted at the moment between about seven and midnight - that's why I'm so aggrieved at decisions being made at a couple of hours notice wjthout my having a chance to respond. Scolaire (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the notice on the ballot itself is sufficient. Sorry about your internet woes. -- Evertype·✆ 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Woof comment

Am I correct in assuming, this is the catchphrase of Lord Flashheart? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just provoking Scoláire 'cause he said I barked at him. -- Evertype·✆ 23:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And continuing to p**s on him from a height despite the effort he's put in to make this thing work! Good night. I'll be back in three weeks to see how it has gone. Scolaire (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not, and I resent your saying so. -- Evertype·✆ 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Woah! I'm really sorry about that! I thought your response in the previous section was saying that you thought the announcement as it stood was sufficient and that I had no grounds for complaint. I see now that you were saying the opposite. Please forgive me! That was just soo out of order! Scolaire (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you. Pint? -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Def. When? Scolaire (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, after the fun is over…. I'm in Westport but go to Dublin or Dún Laoghaire now and again. -- Evertype·✆ 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A note about my barnstar

I guess it was premature. My level of dejection is very high now, considering the way the moderator has let this degenerate from a confident "Let's start the poll at midnight" to "let's wait another week and add a whole lot of POV statements" makes me wonder what I even spent any of my otherwise valuable time on this topic for. It's looking as though the Project is going from an attempt at professional, mature assessment of the problem and wording it for a community-wide vote to a mob-rule spectacle incorporating everybody's POV arguments. I don't understand how any good can come from any of the discussion which has happened today.…-- Evertype·✆ 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your barnstar was merited, and nothing that happens from here on in will take from the success of the xxxx poll and your part in it. Can I just play my stuck record to you once again? If you really want to be listened to, say it once, say it briefly, and say it calmly Don't jump in and respond to each and every post as it appears, and don't use bold, uppercase or underline. The more you do that, the more people are going to dismiss what you say without even reading it. Stay cool, and I believe - nay, I am convinced - people are going to come back to something very close to what you originally proposed. Scolaire (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

logographic orthographies and dyslexia

Hi

I am aware that we got off on thew wrong foot earlier, but we need your help or the help of someone from the writing system team.

The WIKI dyslexia project has recently applied the WIKI Summary style to the main Dyslexia article, and now we are trying to develop a new set of sub articles to provide more detail regarding the wider issues which combine to explain the dyslexic issues.

We have one new article in particular which we are having problems with Orthographies and dyslexia the aim is to briefly describe and define each of the different writing systems, the different particular set of neurological skills required to read information using each of of the different writing systems, and from there explain how having one or more neurological skill deficits can cause an individual to be dyslexic, and how the type of deficits that causes dyslexia can very dependent on the writing system being used.

The current problem we are having with logographic orthographies and dyslexia section of Orthographies and dyslexia is that the Logogram is very short of references and citations. We do need to use some information from this article in our attempts to define the logographic orthographies before we can define the difficulties a dyslexic may have when trying to use these systems. Talk:Orthographies and dyslexia

I hope you can help in some way. dolfrog (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

from there explain how having one or more neurological skill deficits can cause an individual to be dyslexic, and how the type of deficits that causes dyslexia can very dependent on the writing system being used.
I've explained to Dolfrog that any such analysis would be original research unless previously done elsewhere. Same with any attempts to "define" anything unless that definition has been done before. I've AFD'd Orthographies and dyslexia for that reason. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting my statement and other matters

I put up the link to my statement more to set the ball rolling than anything else. I have nothing like the same attachment to ROI as I did last October. I have no interest in staying at a party for two (not that you're not excellent company!) so I've deleted it. I would consider putting it back if the list starts to grow exponentially, and especially if option F was under-represented.

I have said on the Collaboration talk page that our part is done, and that it is time for us all to put down our pens. Even though nobody agrees with me, I am going to practise what I preach. If there's anything you absolutely need me to do, just leave a note on my talk page. Otherwise, the next time I post will be to register my vote. I hope to God that will be soon. Good luck! Scolaire (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm hoping sane editing practice will prevail; I am spending less time then previously though. Domer's back with more protests, I could not resist this. -- Evertype·✆ 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It made me laugh! I never thought I'd see the day when you would present evidence in favour of ROI!
Seriously, though, continue to ignore Domer's provocations. He's only able to disrupt when somebody takes the bait. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of use is not an argument in favour. It's just evidence of use. -- Evertype·✆ 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Woo hoo! There are now two, again. Both using the new template and caveat header. -- Evertype·✆ 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration

Hello, Evertype. I never knew a discussion on a Ballot could get so heated. As I said on the talk page, I think Masem is doing a good job, and he's moderating all on his own. I think the other moderator should come in and give him a helping hand. I do believe that statements should be sourced but my opinion on it is not so strong that I would continue to harp on about it. I'll step away from the discussion now and hope you get the Ballot off and running as soon as possible. All the best. Coll Mac (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What we need is not people stepping away, but people saying "I can live with this version, warts and all, and let's go ahead." As far as Position Statements go, well, my own one links to various wiki articles but I'm not interested in writing a "thesis" to prove what my take on things is. Are you writing a Position Statement? I encourage you to do so. (And I don't even know what "side" you are on.) -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The truth is, even after perusing some of the discussions pertaining to the ballot, I have no position. I shall though read all the statements with interest and decide then where my x should go. I have copied most of my above post to the collaboration talk page to let people know that I'm not too hung up on the sourced not sourced argument. Coll Mac (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are invited

I would like to get your comments on WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons#Moving forward before moving it into WP:Blazon. Thank you for your participation in this process. I hope you will stay with the project and help us continue to improve WP:Blazon as well as our heraldry-related articles. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a word, phrase, sentence used to describe the differences between writing systems ?

Hi Evertype

this might sound a daft question , but I was really wondering what is available to provide a practical example of how orthographies differ between and within different writing systems. Something we could use within the dyslexia project to help explain the different skills required for reading, writing and spelling. dolfrog (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus?

Hello, Evertype. On looking at the supports for the statements and rationales to begin now to get the Ballot started, I see there are seven editors supporting it. Although no editor specifically bolded an oppose there are two who don't want it to go ahead yet. In my world this would be a consensus to begin the process. Is there a different set of rules for wikipedia (serious question)? Coll Mac (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In my world this would also be consensus. I don't know what Masem is doing. -- Evertype·✆ 13:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland position statement

Thanks for the message. Yes, my position statement is ready. Valenciano (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

Hell, yeah! :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Damn straight. -- Evertype·✆ 15:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's "F"

It looks like "F" is going to win the poll. Most British editors would automatically go for that because they don't like the state using the name Ireland. We should have included Eire in the selection, just for laughs, if anything. Tfz 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is Day One of 42. -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested in keeping an eye on my tally. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in what "Masem" has done to my tally. Talk about naked political censorship. Please have a word with him. (Remember: what my spreadsheet does is give numerical support to the statement made above by Tfz). What is upsetting the POV -pushers is not that it is being said; but that I'm showing that the contention cannot be dismissed. Because it is TRUE Sarah777 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, I think that Masem has acted properly, and that you have not. Apparently (according to Rannṗáirtí) "at least two voters removed their ballots to avoid being 'ethnically profiled' or 'added to some POV warriors statistics'. Please look at the addition I have added to my position statement, and please reconsider your position in light not of your feelings about your country, but about the good of this encyclopaedia. In point of fact I found your profiling to be offensive, and I think that continued behavior of that sort ought to jeopardize your enfranchisement in this poll. You have a lot to offer, Sarah, but you've not been treating this problem with the care it needs. -- Evertype·✆ 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IP vs Sarah777

Any idea as to who the IP is, 'locking horns' with Sarah777? Wowsers, he/she isn't shy. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I couldn't say. -- Evertype·✆ 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise on Ireland names

Hmm, I'll consider your proposal. But, I'm likely to stick to my preferences until September 13. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna wait until Sept 13. If things haven't been worked out by then? I'll give the compromise a chance. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, you waiting till 13 September for your one vote doesn't help. What would help is agreement by members of the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to recommend Ireland (state). For my part... I am evidently a voice crying in the wilderness. I doubt I can fight this battle for thirty more days. -- Evertype·✆ 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm just not in panic mode. I'm gonna except the results in Sept, no matter what they are. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Your ONE vote isn't what we need. We need a collaborative approach to this problem. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
September 13th, no sooner. Who knows, by then a 'compromise' may not be required. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't get it. If you and others in the WikiProject stay shtum and don't encourage anyone to compromise, then people will keep voting for A and B and F. -- Evertype·✆ 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Have faith in us. Like I said, if things don't get sorted out by then, I'll go for the compromise. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That's your one vote. That's not the issue. -- Evertype·✆ 12:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Evertype, I don't think you should fight the battle for another 30 days. Unless I'm badly mistaken British Watchers precondition to the compromise just won't be accepted by all members of the Ireland Collaboration Project (and he knows it). Unless he can be persuaded to change that, then it's going nowhere in my opinion. It's just a shame people couldn't see the compromise on the first day of voting. Jack forbes (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you reverted my revert. Which part do find helpful, Evertype? Jack forbes (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the fact that people are engaging in dialogue with me and that I am not just whistling in the dark. -- Evertype·✆ 12:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a quick note. It was good to meet you on these Talk pages. I think we both share similar thought patterns. For me though, hope was extinguished by the inaction over Sarah's block, coupled with the triumphalist language and dismissal for compromise when the "F" vote took the lead (thanks in large part to the "splitters". Impressed that you're still fighting the fight though! --HighKing (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We, of the E-option fan club, welcome you aboard. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sniff sniff. Oh well the D-option is all right. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to see what would happen. E is ahead of the three sensible options. -- Evertype·✆ 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

resurrection of hangul ㅸ

Hi Michael,

You've probably heard, but hangul has been adopted to write Cia-Cia, and this includes the resurrection of ㅸ for /v/ (or so I would assume from 뗄레ㅸㅣ시, from Indonesian televisi "television"). It would appear that Unicode does not currently encode blocks with ㅸ, so that might be something to add. (Vowels a, e, i, o, u, plus final consonants.) If the institute that organized this succeeds in getting hangul adopted for more unwritten languages, there may be a need to resurrect ㆄ for /f/ as well, so some space might want to be reserved for it. kwami (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Everytype, your continued accusations of trolling are becoming tiresome. I ask you to cease them, and apologise. Re-stating demonstrable facts in the face of repeated lies and denials is not trolling. It is a simple refusal to be bullied. Perhaps if you checked the impressively extensive range of articles across which BritishWatcher is pursuing a "pro-British" agenda since he popped up last November you might be better informed. Maybe 5% of my activity on Wiki involves issues such as this. What does BW do? Well 19% of his 5k edits to date are on articles (mostly edit warring in one form or another to support his British perspective) and the rest is on talk pages of controversial articles behaving just like he is here. You are one of the more reasonable editors about here but I will not accept accusations of trolling from anyone. They are, as you will know, failing to WP:AGF, breach WP:CIVIL and are personal attacks. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you persist in trolling behaviour, I shall describe it as such. I do not believe that you are acting in good faith. In fact, I believe that your actions, and your insistence on Being Right are examples of a rather outrageous egotism. In fact, I'll be perfectly honest with you here: By your actions, you are practically guaranteeing a total entrenchment on the part of those whom you are "profiling" as "British", both inside and outside this WikiProject—and that means that your actions are guaranteeing that the status quo will prevail, and that the article will be locked down at Republic of Ireland. If that happens, you can look into the mirror and say "Job well done, Sarah!". I do not apologize for opposing your behaviour. Your behaviour exemplifies neither collaboration nor compromise. -- Evertype·✆ 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If the effect of demonstrating the operation of majority pov against the wishes of Irish editors is to cause the pov-pushers to become more entrenched, so be it. For 7 years the approach you are advocating (whatever it is) has failed to change a thing. I have outlined the compromises I have made and am prepared to make. But I'll not be bullied into denying reality. By you or anyone else. Next time you launch a personal attack on me, expect a reply in kind. Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You certainly do have a fundamentalist mindset. I did not "launch" a personal attack on you. I criticized your actions, not you. Your actions are provocative trollery. You're no heroine for Ireland. Bullying? Your shrill shouting can be easily described as such. I am unimpressed by your blustering threat to "reply in kind". You're neither collaborative no compromising. -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I need an admin to lock a page

At the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration we are about to put out a community-wide poll. Need an admin to lock the ballot paper. Can an admin ping me on my Talk page? -- Evertype·✆ 09:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFPP. Thanks. causa sui× 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You are waaay late. Thanks though. -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoring personal attacks on me

Please remove those personal attacks on me which you have restored. Sarah777 (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a warrior, aren't you. Sarah? Grow a thicker skin. And anyway, they weren't "personal attacks". They were evaluative and descriptive criticism. You mightn't like the criticism, but that's what it was. In any case, it's considered improper to delete other editors' postings to Talk pages. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
They are personal attacks on me and by restoring them you are (a) are not minding your own business and (b) associating yourself with these gross violations of WP:CIVIL, which you really should read if you think those weren't personal attacks. I got blocked for evaluative and descriptive criticism of J Kenny's struggle with rationality. Believe me I have a very thick skin and have no problem with criticism - but I have major issues with clowns who think they can dish it and then DJ style throw the Wiki book of rules when I respond in kind. Now, I am asking you, still politely, to remove that personal attack on me that you posted. Sarah777 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility primer

Let's take one of the less offensive remarks you have posted about me: you are living in a fantasy Ireland all of your own making - DJ

  • Does it "explicitly refute the central point"? Absolutely not.
  • Does it "find the mistake and explain why I'm mistaken (using quotes)"? Nope. None of that.
  • Does it "contradict me and back it up with reasoning and/or supportive evidence"? Not in the least.
  • Does it "state the opposing case with..."? Nah. It never mentions the opposing case.
  • Does it "critisise my tone without addressing the substance"? Never mentions tone or substance.
  • Does it "attack the characteristics of the writer......"? Ah! No quite..maybe..but getting warm,
  • Does it "sound something like this: 'you are an ass hat' "? Bingo!It appears we have a personal attack. On me. That YOU posted.
As I said, that remark by DJ was in the penny place compared to the attacks by J Kenny. 
But now that I've shown you how - you can work out for yourself what were personal attacks. 
Before deleting them.

Sarah777 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal

Hey, nothing person on the ballot page. You know I'm just arguing a case as much as you are? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you? What case are you arguing? -- Evertype·✆ 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many. With regards to my uncivil remark, I have struck it from the page and apologised on my talk. You can take the above comment was an indication that I knew I was wrong at the time. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Relpy

Hi, I replied on my talk page.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also replied on my talk page. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my 4-yr old niece showed up yesterday, which meant I had to sign-out (thus my delayed response). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Membership in the Ireland Collaboration Project

In all the excitement of the Ireland naming Poll, nobody has noticed that I'm not (nor have I been) a member of the Project. But then, why would anybody notice. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, always felt you were there in spirit more than some who had 'signed up'. RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rashers. I suppose these things happen. Months ago, I resigned my membership at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


GOTCHA!Spacely (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for the typeface collaboration

Requesting editors' help

There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic issues: methinks he doth protest too much.

We are usually on the same side, so your remark surprised me. So let me explain why I felt a line should be deleted. In the "In Ireland" subsection of English, an early paragraph begins
While many in Ireland use the "legislative" plurals euro and cent, it is also the case that many people in Ireland continue to use the regular plurals euros and cents.
and then, just a few lines later, we have
Use of both the legislative and regular plurals is widespread in Ireland.

Well if that is not repetitious, I don't know what is. Now I do appreciate that this aspect has been the subject of many silly edit wars and it must get boring having to repeat yourself. Nevertheless, it does look very close to WP:POINT. I'll let it stand but, out in a one sentence para like that, it must be very tempting for someone to put a fact tag on it. You don't have to prove it isn't true [the census argument] but I doubt that you can prove that it is. No need to reply.--Red King (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Esperanto

Thanks for your support to the creation of an Esperanto Wikisource. As you said, there is a large Esperanto literature (original and translated), and many sites offers much of free content in eletronic version, so the project can help us to centralize them. I'm sure it will soon be the most important source for texts in Esperanto. I readed the article about you. I'm portuguese speaker (sorry the bad english). If someday you need some help with translations to/from portuguese or Esperanto, just let me know. Thanks again, and happy new year! CasteloBrancomsg 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Numero sign

Not sure if you're monitoring my user talk page, but I replied to your question about № by explaining my interpretation of Unicode's position on what the character is for, and some guesses as to why the MOS discourages its use on Wikipedia. I'll assume the discussion will continue there. —mjb (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Euro

Hi - just FYI, I was also going by Wikipedia:IPA for English (as applied at Europe) - but admittedly that is a key rather than a work of phonetics. Not a big issue anyway! Lfh (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.



2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP Ireland in the Signpost

Hi Evertype. WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Ireland for a Signpost article to be published March 15. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. -- Evertype·✆ 10:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, feel free to share this with them. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Email

Michael, may I communicate with you privately via email? I have some issues with our phonetic representation schemes and am wondering if we can't solve some of their most problematic aspects through some intelligent consensus. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish, though formatting is easier on the Wiki. -- Evertype·✆ 09:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I checked and it was a false positive. The partial italic section names (like section Humpty Dumpty#In Through the Looking Glass) are not easy to recognize. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Through the Looking Glass (opera)

You moved the article Through the Looking Glass (opera) to Through the Looking-Glass (opera) with the edit summary: "The book at least has a hyphen…". There is no source that the title of the opera has a hyphen in its title, but plenty of sources which spell it whithout. I suggest you rvert you move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit squabble and wife selling

Hello Michael

There is a somewhat lame argument going on at talk:wife selling re the use of long s. Would you care to chime in?   pablohablo. 19:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

also (more sensibly) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Long s in quotations from primary sources.   pablohablo. 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

one syllable books

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland retold in words of one syllable is fantastic. I just wanted to say thanks for writing it :) Do you know anything else about the series? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I didn't write the book... just the article. I have a list of books in the series, but no real meta-information about it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Regarding your edit summary here, the reason I didn't just search for a source myself is that a single editor spammed the link across about 50 articles in the space of a couple hours, none of them sourced. This wasn't a case of my removing a single unsourced piece of information. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 02:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I was hardly to know that. In any case, it's sourced. -- Evertype·✆ 09:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope my message didn't come off as snarky - I just wanted to clarify. If my fat Wiki pay raise hadn't been declined (again) I may have ben more inclined to source the information for all 50 articles ;) Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coptic

Hi, By all means take that material out again if you'd rather it wasn't there. I wasn't aware that Keft was in beta -- it's being distributed widely and newcomers like me are being asked to use it. The link, of course, I got off the web. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nontheism

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism. Greetings, I see that you have chosen to conspicuously identify as a "Nontheistic Wikipedian" Me too! Currently there is a proposal to delete the article Nontheism or merge and redirect it to Atheism. Greg Bard (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how "conspicuous" it is, but I have responded to the RFD. -- Evertype·✆ 09:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence spacing

Hello Evertype, I'm Airplaneman. Nice to meet you :). I've undone your undo of an undo over at today's featured article. Please see my edit summary for why. Feel free to bring this to the talk page as you suggested. In the future, though, make sure a file exits before adding it . Maybe you meant to change the caption? Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ireland

Hi Evertype,

Just dropping a line to wonder if you would be interested in participating in setting up a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. It took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass". How would you feel about it? Know of anyone who might be interested?

By the way, you might also be interested in joining the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list, if you are not already on it. --RA (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unenthusiastic about the "community" of Irish wikipedians. -- Evertype·✆ 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Evertype. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have a talkback of how I would use the Orphan template, Sadads (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
another talkback,Sadads (talk)
I hate talkbacks. -- Evertype·✆ 15:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, don't like splitting up conversations, other people can't read them. One more time, Sadads (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That looks great, now we get more traffic to all the articles!Sadads (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're from Irish descent (I wish I can visit beautiful Ireland some time soon!) and that you also show some keen interest in many languages, so you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter (an intermediate structure between the Wikipedias and the Wikimedia Foundation) but this hasn't been approved up to that moment because Catalan has not got a/one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT or/and sign the list of "Members and Supporters" following the link on the template. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving Irish culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unicode question

Dear Mr. Everson! Today I caught you making an edit on the Dutch wikipedia, which suddenly made me realise you might be able to answer a question I've been thinking about for a while now. So I thought I'd ask, and this place is as good as any. You may or may not have heard of the language Slovianski, a project I and other have been working on for over four years now. A few months ago I have developed an orthography for something I provisorically call "Naučny Slovianski", a version of the language with several additional diacritics to convey etymological information (see here). The Slavic languages distinguish between hard and soft consonants, and I use acutes for that, which works fine for S, Z, R, L and N. However, I was surprised to find out that Unicode does neither include T-acute nor D-acute. At present, we are using T-haček and D-haček as a workaround, but frankly speaking, it doesn't look good. I've tried T and D with combining acutes, but that doesn't look good either. So here comes my question: is there even the slightest chance T and D with acute will ever be added? Is there something that could be done to get them included? Best regards, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You caught me? Anyway, no, there is no chance that new pre-composed letters will be added to the standard. You have to make sure your fonts do the right thing. -- Evertype·✆ 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. That was quick! As for "caught", I am not a native speaker of English, so if I used the word wrongly, i.e. in any other meaning than "noticed", then I apologise. Best, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Am not

Hi - I just tried to answer your question on the Talk:Contraction of am not page. Let me know what you think. Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: KS

No problem, I truly hope when the SWF is revised in 2013 it gets as close as possible to KS (or even better, just becomes it). I thought a good way to work towards this was to get as many people as possible to see a list of the changes, in bullet points, described as simply as possible. Perhaps this could be done elsewhere. When the information is right in front of them, there shouldn't be any reason to disagree with it. --Kernoweger (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as 2013 is concerned... there is a list of faults. In KS we have implemented remedies to those faults. One might implement other remedies. But there must be remedies. And if there aren't remedies... -- Evertype·✆ 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ᵻ

I can't see ᵻ on my computer, and if I can't, then so can't many other people, which isn't very helpful for an encyclopedia. Is the workaround <s>ɪ</s> giving ɪ accurate enough? --Kernoweger (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You need better fonts. It's an i-coloured schwa, so I guess either [ə] or [ɪ] depending on the word. -- Evertype·✆ 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do, but me getting better fonts won't fix the problem for everyone else. We'll have to wait for better in-built support. I've tried to replace one of the characters on Kernowek Standard, and two on Cornish language, please take a look and see if they're accurate enough. --Kernoweger (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin

LOL. That's cool. No worries. I'll post a proper reply to your comment in a day or two. Thanks for it though. --RA (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a reply, proper or improper. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already ready written it.
Another editors raised similar concerns. I grouped a longer response to you both on the comment page.
Adminship is not something that I am actively pursuing but thank you for your comment. I've thought once or twice about asking for an RfU on myself and it is beneficial (in my opinion) to get feedback of the kind you wrote. --RA (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ain't

I think we both agree that all the ain't/amn't/hain't/bain't content is related - we just disagree on the best title for the article. And I have to say, when you first proposed Ain't and amn't, I thought it was an interesting compromise suggestion. And I agree that anyone looking for those words will get to the right article. I just think that the title Ain't and amn't is a little misleading to readers - to me, it says that there is some equivalence or opposition between the terms, when actually ain't is much more widely used, and by far the term most people would be interested in. I still think my London/City of London analogy works pretty well to explain my thinking. And other than the fact that the amn't section is better developed, why doesn't hain't get to be in the article title? It seems to be used/referenced as much as, if not more than amn't.

Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I was just disappointed in the treatment of ain't when I came across it a few weeks ago, and I'm trying to make it the best article I can. Thanks for your input. Dohn joe (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Most everyone will get to it via Ain't or via Amn't… I really don't think that Hain't and Bain't are to be fair hardly as widespread—and those are modelled on Ain't anyway. All of this can be finessed in the text of the article. Compare for instance Full breakfast which was once split up into a zillion articklets. In any case, I don't think that Ain't is the right place for an article about "amn't" and I don't think that either "hain't" or "bain't" (which I've never heard by the way) could have ever sustained articles of their own. For this one, I stand by Ain't and amn't. -- Evertype·✆ 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As a non-Hiberno/Scottish/Southern US/Appalachian English-speaker, I don't know that I'd ever heard of either "amn't" or "hain't" before this, but I'd definitely heard of "ain't". If Google is to be believed (and I don't know that it always is), "hain't" (excluding "ghost") actually out-hits "amn't" 350,000 to 50,000. Both of which are dwarfed by "ain't", at almost 50 million results. I think that's my main point. "Amn't" and "hain't" are interesting words that may or may not be able to support independent articles, but in the context of discussing "ain't", they play bit roles. (By the way, I really hope it doesn't seem like I'm disparaging "amn't". It just seems to me that "ain't" holds a unique place in the lexicon and culture.) Did my London analogy (London:ain't::City of London::amn't) make any sense? Thanks for indulging me in this discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Response on the Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 13:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you have anything else to add to the great ain't debate at the moment? If not, I think I'll ask for help from the wider community, since we seem to be at an impasse.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd be happy if you dropped it. I don't, and won't agree to move amn't into ain't since amn't is a precursor which is still in current use, even if you haven't heard it. The article is fine with its present title. Work to improve the article. Stop worrying about its title. The title i good enough, and Ain't ain't a better title. -- Evertype·✆ 23:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've requested a third opinion on the title. Dohn joe (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Good for you. I'm sorry you didn't let it drop. Seems like anti-amn't chauvinism to me. -- Evertype·✆ 07:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - since there's still no consensus on the title, I've started an RfC. We'll see if anyone else cares enough to comment.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that you have been so stubborn about getting your way. Plenty of genuine linguistic evidence was produced. No, I'm not "enjoying" this. -- Evertype·✆ 07:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you taking a quick look at a compromise thought over at Ain't and amn't's talk page, and let me know what you think, if you wouldn't mind. Dohn joe (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your various comments on my talk page. Yes, it's the Welsh for Ecnalubma. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Possessive me

Sorry I missed the discussion on ain't and amn't. There's a very slow discussion going on at talk:Possessive me which could do with some input from a linguist.  pablo 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN

You do not have the authority to unilaterally remove a merge proposal from an article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do relax. You ought not make three separate but related requests when discussing it on the Talk page (which I requested, courteously) would do just as well. -- Evertype·✆ 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You overestimate the apparent courtesy of your actions, and you overstep your authority. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping Calm

Sure, I understand the reference. By itself, your simple assertion that "in 2010, a man devised this variant" put it at the same level as Eat More Pies, though, however politically apposite it might be (I did check news sources to see whether there was anything more than "man devises variant", but couldn't find anything). That it's proven popular on social networks doesn't necessarily mean anything in itself - the yardstick is whether a reliable source gives that popularity any coverage. You're welcome to add a mention back into the article when that happens. --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lisu Syllabary available in Unicode?

Hi Evertype, I see that there is unicode available for the Fraser Alphabet to write the Lisu language. However is there unicode available for the Lisu syllabary (傈僳族竹书文字)? It was invented by a Lisu farmer named Ngua-ze-bo (哇忍波 or 汪忍波, 1899～1956) between 1924~1930 and consists of 1250 glyphs and 880 characters and had reached a total of 1426 pictographs by 1941 [1]. It is also known as the "Bamboo Script" (竹书) used in Weixi Lisu Autonomous County (维西傈僳族自治县), this writing system has been studied and books, journals have been written by institutions such as the Yunnan Nationalities University. According to this website, the Lisu Syllabary was adopted in a typing system in 1988 by the local State government. More info about the Lisu Syllabary here. --Jose77 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hard for me to say, since I don't read Chinese. -- Evertype·✆ 08:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial Teaching Alphabet question

As far as I can tell, the special characters of the ITA are not in Unicode, not even in the conscript registry? I found this message by you [2], but nothing else particularly relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Arabic in Everson Mono

Greetings, Evertype, I Eurograff found one interesting thing. Mutamathil Normal looks like Arabic script in which each letter is separate and compact, like Hebrew, which is only viable form implementable in your font. Can you please consider including Arabic in such manner in your font? More about this true typewriter Arabic on http://arabetics.com site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-10T19:26:54

An eventual Arabic for Everson Mono would function like a real Arabic typewriter, I think. -- Evertype·✆ 10:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
95.211.71.2 -- There were several such proposals to greatly simplify Arabic typesetting / typewriting during the first 7 or so decades of the 20th century, but with the rise of cheap computer power, and more recently support for contextually-dependent font glyph selection standard in the operating system, I really don't think that any such proposal has a realistic chance of being adopted... AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I, Eurograff meant only simple way of glyph drawing in simplistic Everson Mono. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-15T15:16:23

Everson Mono - only contiguous font from you

Greetings, Evertype. After scavenging PDFs using PDF editor, I, Eurograff saw that none of embedded fonts covers whole Greek repertoire:

so I certainly see that only contiguous font from Unicode staff that covers all Greek glyphs at once is only your Everson Mono. Let's this discovery will show anyone that using fonts embedded in Unicode PDFs is more complicated than Everson Mono. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-25T16:04:30

I am not a "member of staff" of the Unicode Consortium. And there is no such thing as a "Unicode PDF". -- Evertype·✆ 03:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I Eurograff meant "Unicode PDF" as official Unicode documents published in PDF format, and I thought you as "member of staff" of the Unicode Consortium on your involvement basis, as described here: http://www.evertype.com/sc2wg2.html as follows:
"Unicode is the industrial implementation standard for the Universal Character Set; Michael Everson is one of the authors and editors of The Unicode Standard version 3.0. WG2 is the ISO/IEC working group responsible for the Universal Character Set; Michael Everson is Irish national representative to this working group, and is a Contributing Editor of ISO/IEC 10646."
So my initial statements are at least approximately accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-26T09:56:29
I don't know what it is that you want from me, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with my being an editor of the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I Eurograff wanted only to share my findings with you for good of community, to have them knowing what font is most closely related to Unicode, and to free others from unneeded asking for your private fonts. Let's everyone knows that your public Everson Mono has better coverage than any of your individual private font. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-26T14:08:00

pny-Wiki without Chinese Characters

Hi Michael, there are several chinese wikis and one in the incubator with only pinyin.

http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/pny/G%C7%94_%C4%81i_j%C3%AD

My idea is to have a chinese wiki with pinyin combined using

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_character http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Annotation 

 huan3 yi1 tian1
 緩一天
 Expiration Date

so that a man from the west can learn more easily the script AND phonetics of e.g. chinese.

One could - in my mind - take over the articles in the chinese wikis and add the pinyin (or whatever transcription) to make it more readable.

What do you think of this?--Dudy001 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything of it. And my talk page is not the venue for such a proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Varika

Hi,

You may know the answer to my question at Talk:Judaeo-Spanish#Varika.

Thanks and Happy New Year! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much

Michael, I had to revert [3]—too contentious, something can be found that is less so. The idea is that an interpretation of one artist's work by another shouldn't be called "mistaken", so those adding "Mad" to the character's name are both earnestly and eagerly careless about it, maybe, but we can't verify that within their adaptation of the work they are actually, for example, misreading a line. That would be a mistake, but embellishing a line is something else. Regards, Sswonk (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have edited, not just reverted. The text as it stands gives the wrong impression. -- Evertype·✆ 09:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

About {{Unicode navigation}}

Hi, I have changed the {{Unicode navigation}} box seriously. All "Scripts in Unicode" are added. If you want to discuss this concept and its usage, please join at User_talk:BabelStone#How_do_you_like_Unicode_navigation?. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All Greek case pairs available in Unicode?

Greetings from THE STRAIGHT DOPE forums, I'm Eurograff, once talking there about related topics, not registered here. Hi Evertype, I see that there in one case, Unicode case-pairing is not available for the Greek alphabet used to write the Greek language. However, could you please add to your http://www.evertype.com/formal.html requests missing Unicode Ι͘ uppercase, which is supposed to be counterpart of present Unicode 03F3 ϳ lowercase, which I think should be currently available for the current fonts like Vusillus&New Athena Unicode? Reason for adding it to Unicode is established by already existing independent invention of this uppercase form by creators of Vusillus&New Athena Unicode fonts. This uppercase is implemented incorrectly by authors of these fonts by using non conformant U+03F5 in Vusillus (conflict with GREEK LUNATE EPSILON SYMBOL), and non conformant U+03FF in New Athena Unicode (conflict with GREEK CAPITAL REVERSED DOTTED LUNATE SIGMA SYMBOL). These fonts are existing since 2003/2004 according to their websites, and they subsequently were already adopted in a typing systems of their users, creating discrepancies between conflicting uppercase implementations of lowercase Unicode 03F3 ϳ in non-matching uppercase U+03F5 and uppercase U+03FF unofficials. More info about the problem directly above here, and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-03T18:21:20

PayPal donations gladly accepted. -- Evertype·✆ 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I Eurograff wonder why you are so money hungry? Could be you please more like Richard Stallman, which means libre contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not independently wealthy and cannot just drop whatever I am doing because some anonymous person comes and asks me to write a proposal. I don't know how Richard Stallman makes a living. -- Evertype·✆ 10:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I Eurograff ask you one question: Would you accept that I will create good proposal in your name and you will simply forward it freely to Unicode as it would be yours? Can you provide me your email please, or should I reveal my email to you? I can do it in PDF from scratch and it can be further modified accordingly by me, using additional sources provided by you for me, besides those already found by me, by using http://www.iceni.com/infix.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.71.2 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not give anonymous people permission to do things "in my name". -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mo

You can take A New Wonderland out if you want, but it definitely fits under "imitations," even if if the inspiriation is less rigid than a slavish imitation. Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • It's mostly about the royal family of Phunnyland (Mo in the revision). No child from outside travels to that land except the Princess Bredenbutta, who comes from another fairyland, and appears in only one chapter. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Не могли бы Вы объяснить на страницах обсуждения Bealtaine и Samhain, как эти слова произносятся в гэльском (ирландском) языке (не вдаваясь в диалекты, как это произносится, например в СМИ). Если Вы знаете шотландский гэльский, скажите и о нём. Go raibh míle maith agat!--217.66.146.151 (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)