User talk:LivLovisa

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LivLovisa! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! LivLovisa (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Left guide (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, per the above notice and WP:ARBECR, please confine your editing in the AI topic area, to straightforward edit requests of the form change X to Y, sourced as necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I can only suggest such bold changes if I completely understand why it is there. I do not, hence why I am asking about it in the talk page to understand why it is there in the first place. LivLovisa (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not permitted, if you do not understand something, research it elsewhere first and then make an edit request as required. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR violations

Hello LivLovisa. I've noticed that since you don't have 500 mainspace edits yet, you violated extended-confirmed restriction (ECR) again ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) at Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest. The article is not EC protected because only parts of the article which relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are covered by ECR, and you were notified by the edit notice before editing the article.

For that article, you may edit the rest of the article, but you cannot touch any part that is related to the conflict until you are extended confirmed. This doens't matter whether the edit is good or not. You are only allowed to make straightfoward edit requests (like change X to Y) in the talk page.

To enforce the restriction, I've reverted edits in violation to this restriction. Such reverts done solely to enforce the restriction doesn't count towards topic-wide 1RR restriction.

You were previously notified about the restriction. Any further violations to the ECR may result in being blocked from editing, or topic-banned from the topic altogether.

Thank you for understanding Stylez995 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood what that notice meant.

I won't do that again, I apologise. LivLovisa (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gothenburg

Hello. Are you sure about this? If you listen to the provided audio, the voice is clearly saying /ˈɡɒθənbɜːrɡ/ not /ˈɡɔːθənbɜːrɡ/. Anecdotally, i have not heard it pronounced GAW-thən-burg at all. I suggest you may want to revert yourself so we don't hold incorrect information ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The voice is indeed saying /ˈɡɒθənbɜːrɡ/ because of their accent. Whoever recorded that has the COT–CAUGHT merger. Someone with a distinct CAUGHT phoneme, written AW in the pronunciation respelling, is gonna keep that phoneme in their speech, and it should be written separately in the pronunciation key.

Do you suggest it to be written like GOTH-ən-burg instead? LivLovisa (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very definitely GOTH not GAW. And i think the previous IPA should be returned ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, on second thought I think you're right. LivLovisa (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hmm, i've just had a look at a couple other of your contributions, and i would also question whether your change to the pronunciation of Malmö is accurate; i don't think in English it is pronounced with the schwa in the final position, but the two previous options were more correct ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I have not heard any other pronunciation than /ˈmælmə/ by any English speaker who is familiar with the city. It's only ever referred to as /ˈmælmoʊ/ by people who are unfamiliar with the city, just reading the word as if it was written with English orthographical rules.

I wish I had more evidence to back this up, the closest thing I've got is this, produced in part by Malmö Stad. LivLovisa (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]