User talk:Geoffreybmx

test this out

Midland American English

Strangely enough, the parts of the article you claimed to object to in the edit summary are also the parts of the article that you didn't revert. Huh? Wolfdog (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I should of edited that part. William Labov says at this exact point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qHjHeNHF5A&feature=youtu.be&t=1m1s that the midland area is a part where "change is not so active." Geoffreybmx (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I wasn't arguing about that before, but I'd be happy too now, since that seems to be your main contention. The video isn't very persuasive for your argument; Labov doesn't say anything about the Midland. In the video, he actually says "the Midwest around Iowa", which, as you can see by his own map, lies primarily within the generic Northern (not Midland) dialect region. Wolfdog (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labov says the North is sounding more northern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h4m52s Also, Labov splits up Iowa into two: Northern Iowa and Southern Iowa, with southern Iowa being part of the midlands. He mentions this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h5m33s. In his book Atlas of North American English, Labov says that North Midland is the most close to any sort of General American. So when he says where dialect is missing (ahd change is not so active), he means the midlands part of Iowa. Geoffreybmx (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only the very southernmost part of Iowa is in the Midland, according to Labov; therefore, at best, you're making an inference about what he really means by "Iowa". But I'm OK with us agreeing to disagree; the way the page currently stands seems fine with both of us. Wolfdog (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]