User talk:Nardog/2017

Do not edit this page. This is the archive of User talk:Nardog for the year 2017. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.)
See the annual archives for 2008, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

How to pronounce Evancho

See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Tanoh Kpassagnon

Thanks for adding that on his page for me and thanks for coming to my defense on the talkpage. The way Tharthan came off was extremely unnecessary when I needed help with something I have no idea what I'm doing with. If I need help IPA again I'll probably reach out do you directly.--Rockchalk7 17 04:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

IPA spelling of the schwa vowel

Hi, I see you do a fair bit of editing to add or change IPA spelling on pages. I reverted your second edit on the Efua Baker page, as she is a British artist, and the schwa vowel is not rhotacised in British English, other than when it occurs in word-final position and precedes a word beginning with a consonant sound in connected speech. Please keep this in mind when adding or altering the phonetic spelling on pages of non-American and non-Canadian people/bands/products.Nqr9 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're mistaken. The IPA notation {{IPAc-en}} uses is a diaphonemic transcription, so "ər" in that template represents not just the sound /ər/ but any sound produced when pronouncing part of the word by any speaker of any variety of English: /ə/, /ɚ/, /ɹ̩/, /əɾ/, /ɘɹ/, etc. See Help:IPA for English#Dialect variation for details. It is indeed inconvenient that the template allows to show one variation per diaphoneme, but... Nardog (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Respelling must accompany IPA"?

You have been adding respellings to many articles with the article summary "respelling must accompany IPA" and linking to MOS/Pronunciation. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation that indicates a respelling must accompany IPA. At most, it says (in the first paragraph) respellings for English words "can be used in addition to the IPA".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamThweatt: Um... I've never been adding respellings to articles. I've only been adding IPA notations to articles which had respellings but not IPA. An IPA notation /ˌlʊks laɪk ˈðɪs/ and a respelling LUUKS-lyke-DHIS. The MOS states,

"For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using {{respell}}) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA."

The documentation at Template:Respell says:

"Per the Manual of Style, respelling should follow the International Phonetic Alphabet, and never be used in place of it."

So a respelling indeed must accompany an IPA notation preceding it, but not vice versa. Does this clarify things for you? Nardog (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. So sorry. I misread the diffs. My misreading of the diffs was probably influenced by your wording of the edit summary. The wording "respelling must accompany IPA" means anywhere there is IPA, it must be accompanied by a respelling, which is obviously wrong. Alternatively, "respelling must be accompanied by IPA" would make sense as would "IPA must accompany respelling" (which means anywhere there's a respelling, IPA must accompany it). So I apologize for misreading the diffs, you are correctly interpreting MOS/Pronunciation and doing a great job with the IPA. I would suggest, however, rewording your edit summary though so as to avoid confusing others. Cheers!--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in, but exactly! I spent quite some time being confused by that edit summary. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

IPA template errors

Hi, I see that you have been tweaking IPA templates. It appears that your changes have caused some pages to transclude {{error}}s: Pages transcluding errors in mainspace

These pages are also populating Category:IPA pages with non-existing IPA audio soundfile. I find this topic and these pages very difficult to understand. Can you fix this? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you for reporting. The error was more or less intended because the template used #iferror: to check if the value was valid. I've replaced it with #ifexist: so they will no longer show up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Error. As for the category, it seems like pages that called the template with empty values had added it. I've modified the template so that the category will be added so long as a value is entered. Nardog (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

All template-protected pages
User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit at Template:IPA

Template:IPA-hu suddenly stopped working, and the reason appears to be your recent edit at Template:IPA. Do you think you could undo your edit until it can be redone in a way that doesn't result in Template:IPA-hu not working? Libhye (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Libhye: Thank you for reporting. I'll look into it and discuss it at Template talk:IPA. Nardog (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Craig Chaquico

Hello, I'm wondering why you made edits to my last edits and why the photo of Chaquico was taken down? I don't see that I did anything that violated the style of Wikipedia. Please can you give reasons for your edits?Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: You must have the wrong person. The only edit I made on Craig Chaquico has nothing to do with any pictures. It merely corrected the pronunciation notations. Nardog (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken, I apologize for the confusion. I must have been looking at an earlier edition. Thank you!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Removal of /ç/

Since the summary for your removal contains no reason, one can only guess at the reason. I can imagine the following possible reasons:

The word "before" in your summary suggests that maybe you simply are guided by a misconception that changes need to be discussed first (or maybe at least in pages that you own). That would, however, be a gross misunderstanding of our guidelines, particularly of WP:Bold. If that is the case, I politely urge you to read those guidelines carefully.
The missing reason suggests that it may simply be a matter of personal preference. In this case, it would help if you explained why you feel the page is better the way you left it. Maybe you have a point that is hard to express, in which case we can figure it out together.

Following WP:BRD, I will start a discussion at Template talk:IPAc-en, where your input would be appreciated. (You asked for the discussion to be at Help_talk:IPA/English, but I see no reason why that unrelated page, which is only one of many pages that indirectly use the page in question, would be preferable to the standard talk page. Since you yourself used the template talk page before, I'm presuming that was just a typo. If not, please feel free to leave a note on your preferred talk page pointing to the discussion.) — Sebastian 11:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: No, it is not a typo, and Help:IPA/English is not even remotely "unrelated" to {{IPAc-en}}. Since each language has its own phonological system, any IPA notation using an IPA(c)-xx template must use only the symbols defined at the key page for the respective language (under Help:IPA/...), unless it's a minor language for which the key doesn't exist yet (see WP:PRON for more). Therefore any addition, modification or removal of a symbol in an IPAc template must be done in accordance with the corresponding key.

I am familiar with WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. But it doesn't seem fair to me for an admin to "boldly" edit a module that's protected as high-risk because then only admins and template editors such as ourselves can boldly edit or revert. Admins have the responsibility to act in accordance with prior consensus when doing anything non-admins can't do.

Moreover, the current set of permissible combinations of symbols of {{IPAc-en}} is a product of extensive, collective deliberation (Help talk:IPA/English alone has 17 archives so far; and other related discussions have taken place at WT:PRON, Template talk:H:IPA, etc., and obviously at Template talk:IPAc-en, for over a decade). Take a look, for example, at the discussion at Help talk:IPA/English#Nasal vowels. There the OP proposed that we replace /ɒ̃/ with four different symbols, and we came to an agreement to add just one and keep /ɒ̃/ instead, after spending more than 1,800 words citing literature from scholars and dictionaries. That's the kind of deliberation we do there. So adding a symbol just because of one source without prior discussion is not only unfair to those who do not have the privilege but also unlike anything that's been done to the template.

So I suggest you propose adding /ç/ first at Help talk:IPA/English rather than at Template talk:IPAc-en. The help page has more watchers too. Nardog (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

We resolved this back in August at Template talk:IPAc-en/Archive 2#Addition of /ç/. But when I just revisited this page, I realized that your post above contained an interesting statement that is worth to be remembered: "Admins have the responsibility ... ". While "... when doing anything non-admins can't do" was a distortion, since you as a non-admin obviously could do the same thing without a problem, as evidenced by the fact that you reverted me right away, you do have a point. I agree with you that adminship brings with it additional responsibilities. Would you be interested to word it so that it could be added to Wikipedia:Administrators § Expectations of adminship? Or should this be a responsibility for all templateeditors? That would naturally straighten out the distortion. — Sebastian 10:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: Well, feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Administrators as far as I'm concerned. Wikipedia:Administrators is a policy which reflects consensus so it's not up to me (nor you) to decide whether such a statement needs to be included in it. For template editors we already have something along the same lines at Wikipedia:Template editor.

(I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "distortion". If anything you're the one who first edited a protected module without prior discussion, which indeed was something a non-admin or non-template editor couldn't have done. Does boldly undoing it count as one as well? If so that practically means admins can do whatever non-admins can't do without prior discussion until a consensus is made to not keep it.) Nardog (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a misunderstanding, triggered by my bad word choice. Instead of "distortion", a better word might have been "discrepancy", since I did not mean to refer to an edit. All I meant was that in the the wording of the suggested rule, the word "admin" occurs twice, but once it actually doesn't refer to admins. A possible solution would be the following wording:

"Template editors have the responsibility [...] when doing anything non-Template editors can't do." That would mean, however, that it shouldn't be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, but at Wikipedia:Template editor. What do you think? — Sebastian 12:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: Again, go ahead, as far as I'm concerned, because it's not up to me. I don't have a particular opinion as to whether we should have an explicit clause like that at Wikipedia:Administrators and/or Wikipedia:Template editor. Nardog (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for staying on the ball. Actually, the whole point of this suggestion was to address your concern. If even you feel tepid about it, then let's not worry about it anymore. Happy editing! — Sebastian 12:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Respell for languages other than English

Given the overarching injunction to "use common sense", and the implied acceptability of supplementing the IPA with anything that works, any attempt to ban respelling for languages other than English makes no sense. When it works, there can be no conceivable reason to disallow it; people just shouldn't try to use it when it doesn't work. Given how few Anglophones know the IPA, respelling when it works is extremely useful, especially in the case of terms whose pronunciation is counter-intuitive to a lot of people. The words, names, etc. may be in languages other than English, but we have to assume that our readers are proficient in English. Cheers, Awien (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

IPA for English

Hi. I appreciate the fact that you correct IPA transcriptions enclosed in the IPAc-en template, but try to check the whole transcription before saving. For example, here you left /i/ in a stressed position (it should've been changed to /iː/) and here you left /ən/ after another nasal (it should've been changed to /ən/). Hope this doesn't come across as stalker-ish, it's just something I noticed. As it says on my user page, I sometimes check out what other Wikipedians have recently been doing out of boredom. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I appreciate all your corrections, but please don't think I'm correcting notations deliberately partially. I do check the whole transcription, but especially when I'm doing it en masse, I can only pay so much attention and sometimes I overlook stuff. Nardog (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess my recent edit summaries were unfair. My mistake. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Thank you for your understanding. Nardog (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

IPAc-en/phonemes

Pardon me if I've missed a relevant discussion, but the parentheses you've included in this edit go against the consensus as I understand it. Can you please either point me to the discussion where a new consensus was reached or revert the addition of the parentheses? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Hmm, I had added the parentheses in the sandbox thinking it would help prevent good-faith edits removing /j/ subject to dropping (like this) and just included them when I made the edit, but perhaps I should have given more thought to it. I'll revert and maybe bring it up at Template talk:IPAc-en. Nardog (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

[ɚ]

Hi there! I wondered if you knew of any good sources that discuss the idea that [ɚ] and [ɹ]. I've been trying to find some lately. Let me know and thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I think it's just an arbitrary choice dependent on phonology rather than phonetics. Professor Roach seems to agree. Much like [i]–[j] and [u]–[w], [ɚ] is just a vocalic equivalent of [ɹ] ([ɹ̠] to be exact, but the IPA chart defines [ɹ] as covering the whole coronal region and there's no phonemic variation in the area in English so just [ɹ] will do). Here's an example of describing the NURSE/lettER vowel as [ɹ̩] rather than [ɚ]. Nardog (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! I was trying finding a firm source to guard against users who revert/delete such statements. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

IPA of Deseret alphabet

Why did you change it on this page but not Deseret (Book of Mormon) or Deseret, Utah? I see you did also change Deseret News. Just overlooked? I don't know enough about IPA to know which version is right. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks, as for the syllabification (the full stop) between /z/ and /ə/, although there is a division in the original AHD notation, it is not necessary in our Help:IPA/English system since there is no ambiguity (and also one could argue /z/ is ambisyllabic). As for the full stop at the end, no one familiar with IPA would argue it's necessary. Thus /dɛzəˈrɛt/ is just fine. Nardog (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Notifying other WP users

Thanks for your advice. I have sent Sweyn78 a message on his own Talk page. RoachPeter (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your merge of Phonetic palindrome and Palindrome

There was no consensus for a merge of these articles [1]. It was proposed, and I objected. Even the person proposing the merge recognized that there were significant problems with the material. What's your justification for making the merge? Three hours after a rewrite is not sufficient time for other editors to evaluate the new content, particularly when there has been no support for a merge after 4 months. This is not an unopposed merge. Please undo this merge until it can be discussed. Meters (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: You can revert per WP:BRD, then, as far as I'm concerned. Nardog (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm discussing it now. I'm asking you to justify your merge If you can't justify it then you should never have made it, and you should have immediately undone it yourself when asked. Meters (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I don't consider this a bold move as much as a clear mistake. Meters (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Swedish consonant length

Hi, do you have any information about how consonant length is determined in Swedish? I know if a certain vowel is short and stressed, the next consonant is geminated, although this consonant may also be short. Is there a predictable way to judge the length? — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 22:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Hello?? — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 04:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Oh come on, it's not even been a couple days. I'm busy for these few days (or rather, I'm supposed to be; so @Mr KEBAB and Wolfdog: sorry, thanks for your patience). I know I've made some little edits since your message, but that's because I figured I'd get back to you once I had the answer. (But it's okay. This is just me being a jerk, I understand your perspective too.)

Anyways, have you tried contacting Peter Isotalo? He is a native speaker of Swedish and one of the major contributors to the Swedish phonology article, so he might be able to answer your questions (which I'm afraid I am not, at least for the moment). Nardog (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Yeah, be a bit more patient. Did you check Riad? He surely mentions it, length is very important in Swedish phonology. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I thought he said he didn't have access to the relevant part of the book on your talk page. Nardog (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are two previews available, and apparently not everyone can access the same pages on GB (at least sometimes). Also, I'm sure that at least one library in Sydney (if he still lives there) has this book. He probably can check that online. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB and Awesomemeeos: Also your library or institution may have a subscription to Oxford Scholarship Online. Nardog (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for acting like an arsehole in my part. However I will check my local libraries whether they have this book or not. I will think about talking to Peter, as he only made small edits just two months ago... — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 11:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ginkgo, kyou, and kyo

Hey Nardog! This happened awhile ago, but I thought it may be worth talking about my edit and your reversion of the edit. First I want to say, you're absolutely correct: キョ is romanized as kyo in Japanese. My edit was because the pronunciation of "apricot" that I linked, in Japanese, is actually キョウ, or kyou. This is where things get a little confusing - I know little about plants but I do know some things about Japanese - if Kaempfer would have used キョ, that's fine, and it makes sense to say "gingkgo is a misspelling of gin kyo." My correction was because kyo itself is a misspelling of the pronunciation of the word in Japanese, which is subtly different and sounds much the same, but is actually "spelled" キョウ, which becomes romanized as kyou. So your edit makes sense if we're talking about a misspelling from Kaempfer - my edit was talking about the misspelling of the Japanese itself. May be too late and may be not worth getting into, but it's something that my Japanese understanding has me interested in getting correct, if we're talking about a misspelling from the original Japanese! Thanks for the nod to my edit being in good faith :) -Mldavis92 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mldavis92: No, both キョ and キョウ are typically romanized as kyo. What is spelled オウ ou is in fact most often pronounced as a long vowel オー ō (the chōonpu is a recent innovation). Such a sequence is typically romanized as ō in the Hepburn system, which is the de facto standard. And due to typographical limitations (or sheer laziness), the macron is often omitted (or sometimes replaced with a breve), so just o is a totally sound (and even predominant) romanization of such a long vowel. Think of Shinzo Abe, Junichiro Koizumi, Yoko Ono, etc., which would be Shinzō Abe, Jun'Ichirō Koizumi, and Yōko Ono in a more precise transcription. See Romanization of Japanese for more. Nardog (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

IPA

Actually, it doesn't look like WP:PRON says what you say it does. Is there some reason you think it serves the reader better to mess with an FA by making it harder for readers to read? You appear to be confusing accuracy and precision—your IPA is more precise but harder to read, while the original is sufficiently accurate and gives the reader what they need. Besides, if you're going to be this pedantic, why not give an Edo-period IPA? Or range of IPA representations crossing the centuries in which the term was originally used? Keep in mind that the article has already gone through several rounds of review, including by Japanese speakers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: WP:PRON § Other languages: if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page before creating transcriptions which are not supported by the key, or before changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions, either one of which is likely to confuse readers.

So yes, so long as one is using language-specific IPA, one must adhere to the language's key. This is because a given IPA symbol does not always represent the same sound across languages, or otherwise we would invite a tremendous amount of clutter. Even [ɯkʲijoe] is already a very simplified notation; an actually precise transcription would look something like [ʔɯ̟ᵝʔ͡kʲijo̞e̞]. So if it doesn't help readers in your opinion, I agree, it might as well be just removed. Nardog (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have examples of minimal pairs distinguishing [ɯ] from [u] or [kʲi] from [ki] in Japanese? Of course not—this is noise unhelpful to the reader in the context. Are you even trying to understand why the IPA is being given in the context? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: And why are you refusing to understand that you're doing things in the wrong order? It's Help:IPA/Japanese that you should ask to be changed, not that one transcription which links there. You're also misrepresenting our position - nobody is claiming that Japanese has two contrastive back vowels or that palatalization of the voiceless velar stop is phonemic. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question posed—there are reasons we use ⟨r⟩ in English IPA on Wikipedia, even though very few English speakers use the sound represented by that IPA symbol. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Further, there are those fighting to have IPA removed as pronunciation guides in the leads entirely, and this hairsplitting nonsense only feeds that movement (there's such a discussion going on at MOS:BIO right now). You folk are only shooting yourselves in the foot if you're going to continue with this nonsense. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing productive will come of this

@Curly Turkey: The only nonsense I see here is your stubbornness. Sorry, but that's the truth. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you can't answer a straight question. You're a disruption. I hope Nardog at least can continue to have an adult-level discussion of the issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Said he, after refusing to answer a straight question. You should be a comedian. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nardog, I'm going to ignore Mr K's trolling. My concerns are serious and need to be addressed. Can we have an adult discussion about this? Neither removal nor the IPA you added are solutions that best serve the reader in the context. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey and Mr KEBAB: Please do not add any more comments on this topic here any longer. This conversation has been exhausting. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry the discussion went down a back alley. I hope we'll find an appropriate solution at Help talk:IPA/Japanese. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that's fair enough, and I also apologize. I can see why you wouldn't want to read this on your own talk page. You can remove the negativity if you want, I have no problem with that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

IPA and respelling changes to NATO phonetic alphabet

Moved to Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet/Archive 2 § IPA and respelling