Hello, Rolando 1208, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Libertybison (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you recently restored an old version which I reverted on Pinoy. The reversion was made because the user had introduced a random @ sign, and removed content without explaining. I was curious as to your reasoning for restoring this. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neuropol. The word "pinoy" is a Tagalog word, so the English pronunciation is unnecessary. As for the @, it's not random; it stands for both O and A. Hence, Filipin@s, Latin@s, etc. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, the "o" represents a gender neutral state as well as a masculine state.

Is there precedent or instructions in the manual of style indicating this usage? Also, this is the English Wikipedia, so the English pronunciation is most certainly necessary. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuropol this word is only used by Filipinos, so the supposed "English pronunciation" isn't used by anyone. In any case they're not that different you know, pɪˈnɔɪ and pɪˈnɔi. If you can read the IPA, you can pronounce the Tagalog one without an issue. It seems redundant to have both since they're nearly identical. You can use Filipino though, if the @ bothers you that much!! Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Annh07. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nothing have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Annh07 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rolando 1208! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Pelmeni several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Pelmeni, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I found two of your recent edit summaries to be misleading: this one misrepresented the actual guideline it alluded to in justifying the edit, and this edit not only moved the pronunciations etc from the footnote to the maintext (which would be consistent with the edit summary) but also deleted the IPA w/o any explanation. Please take greater care in the future. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple deduction. What's the native language of Marathis? I don't think I've misrepresented the guideline. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw there are so many Indian editors, the same people who wrote the guideline. Just based on their sheer number you can trust them to enforce their own guideline. Have you looked into why they wrote in the first place, how it came to be? I'd recommend you check that out too. Please don't revert harmless good faith edits. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 Let me spell it out for you: it is misleading to remove the English pronunciation at Bhojpuri as you did here, with the summary No reason to hide the local pronunciation., which implies you are simply unhiding the local pronunciation; something completely different. What the native language of the Marathis is is completely irrelevant, because this is an English encyclopaedia. Removing information and then claiming the result is "good enough" isn't acceptable, really. Theknightwho (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando, if you would like to argue that enthnolinguistic groups should be an exception to WP:INDICSCRIPT, please gain consensus for that change instead of falsely claiming that they already are. Also, don't delete the IPA sourced to OED just because you believe that source is wrong. And, particularly don't do it with another misleading edit summary claiming that "IPA for local language is good enough" when there is no other IPA pronunciation included in the article.

Finally, if you believe that my understanding of the CTOP or the origins/application of WP:INDICSCRIPT is flawed, I don't believe there is much point in my trying to convince you otherwise. I would instead advise you to get a second opinion from an experienced editor you trust or at WP:TEAHOUSE since further violations of either P&G's is likely to get you sanctioned. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see my mistake. I must have confused IPA with audio pronunciation somehow. But the point in my edit summary still stands. Would you accept the edit if I changed the English IPA with the native one? Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for IPA of the term 'Bhojpuri' as pronouced in the Bhojpuri language that may be a worthy addition to the article. Best to discuss the proposal and sources on the article talkpage so that all interested editors can participate. Abecedare (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare For context, this user has a bit of a history of trying to remove English pronunciations from terms that they deem not to be English (see most of their recent contributions). No matter how many people say that it's not acceptable to remove them unilaterally like that, they just move on to a different article and carry on. Theknightwho (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this continues, I would suggest reporting it at WP:ANI. By now Rolando should be aware of both MOS:IPA and WP:INDICSRIPT, and should be using article talkpages if they have any doubt. I am cautiously hopeful though that the editor will step back from the current path. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare I'd hope so. I've been going through their old contributions, and this has been a theme going on for months, across quite a large number of articles, so I've had to spend quite a while reverting/restoring. @Rolando 1208 To be absolutely clear here: if I see any more of this, I will have no choice but to escalate things to WP:ANI, as you've done quite a lot of harm by removing pronunciations like this. I appreciate that you mean well and that you've done it in good faith, but edit summaries like "I really don't see the point of the American pronunciation for an Indian king. Feels like colonialism to me" or claims that the non-English pronunciation is "good enough" (as you did recently) miss the point that English-speakers need to know how to say things in English, even if that differs from the native pronunciation.

On a separate-but-related note: there is an ever-present theme of edit-warring in your contribution history, and some of the worst incidents relate to the removal of pronunciations. For example, I can see 6 removals of the pronunciation from Ashoka alone back in March, and 4 very recently at Côte d'Ivoire, where you were only stopped by the page being full protected. Please stop, as at some point you're likely to get sanctioned for it, and at the rate you've been doing it that's likely to be sooner rather than later. Theknightwho (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker much? Are you also gonna revert my edits from 12 months ago? Btw as for edit warring, there is a 3 reverts rule, I haven't broken thay one in a long time. The Ashoka edit has consensus. If you want to edit it your way, you need to change the consensus. That's how it works. Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 I reviewed your contributions to revert the unjustified content removals that you've made over the last few months. @Abecedare Rolando's immediate reaction has been to remove the pronunciation at Ashoka again and to rules-lawyer about edit-warring here, which is not promising. Would you say we should take this to WP:ANI? Theknightwho (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for CTOP, it is my understanding that it tends to refer to controversial topics like geopolitical conflicts, conspiracy theories, public figures who probably get vandalised a lot, etc. A good example would be something relating to Kashmir, "love jihad", Modi. Not small regional languages. I might be wrong here, but I think that's what it refers to. Lastly, may I ask, how does one gain consensus to amend a policy exactly? I've never done this before. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CTOP. WP:CT/IPA covers All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, which certainly includes Bhojpuri language, Marathi people etc.

As for amending WP:INDICSCRIPT. The process would start with an informal discussion at a centralized location such as WT:INB or the relevant village pump, and if there appears to be enough appetite to consider a change and a specific update proposal has been formulated, it would need to followed by an WP:RFC to establish consensus for the amendment. Fwiw, this is not something I would recommend. Abecedare (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for battleground conduct, including assuming bad faith and edit-warring, (eg, [1], [2], [3], [4]). and ignoring feedback despite numerous warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare You're gonna block me for wanting consensus? It took me time to achieve consensus on the Ashoka talk page. He can revert it just like that and I get banned for it? The burden of consensus is on the one who wants to make the change. Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to this thread, but User:Joshua Jonathan disagreed with you in both comments, while User:Hwamplero only eventually conceded, saying people could get the pronunciation from Wiktionary, after you removed it from the article 6 times in 3 days ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]). That's not consensus; that's beating the other participants into submission with WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

I'm not going to respond to this any further, but I really did feel the need to correct you on this, as it's simply wrong to claim there was any kind of consensus for your viewpoint. Theknightwho (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho That's not how I see it, but fair, I will reduce the frequency of my reverts. 6 times sounds like a lot when you put it that way.

I don't see it as a BATTLEGROUND since I was also using the talkpage. It was not my intention to "beat" anyone. I was also using edit summaries, so there was a back and forth. It was my intention to either convince the other editor or be convinced by his/her viewpoint.

TL;DR: If you don't like lawyers, that's fine. I don't HAVE TO edit 3RR. I also hope you do the same. If I don't revert 2-3 times a day but you do, well, that wouldn't be an equal playing field would it? I'm looking forward to debate you in the talk pages. Have a good weekend mate. Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho even if you won't reply, I'll put this here so I won't forget. Yes, we could include all the Filipino languages. But only Tagalog and English are the official languages. As for their English, they pronounce the Tagalog loanwords the native way. Not the American way, not the British way. Cheers. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 Please just stop removing them; I haven't yet seen a single other editor agree with you over it, and I'm not prepared to spend large chunks of time justifying why I reverted each removal, because MOS:DUALPRON is already clear on this: When a non-English name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and non-English pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. The statement include both the English and non-English pronunciations is not ambiguous. You might disagree with it, but you can't just ignore it, and if you want to get it changed then you will need to get the manual of style changed. Also, since you brought it up before, WP:ONUS is obviously satisfied in these situations, since the justification for inclusion is the fact that the manual of style says that we need to include the English pronunciation in cases like these.

If you keep removing them anyway, I'm just going to go to WP:ANI next time. Theknightwho (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And that's how it should be. Filipino English is also a valid form of English, it even has native speakers. So the overwhelming majority of English speakers who use this word in their daily lives are Filipinos. Don't worry, I won't revert you 3 times consecutively, I know you don't like it. You've made it very clear. No lawyer behaviour! And obviously no legalese, I'm not fluent in the jargon anyway. Then again, it feels like you're the prosecutor when you tell me you want to go to WP:ANI. Too confrontational, when I'm trying to tone it down from my part. I just got blocked and you're already talking about my next one. We both need to assume good faith here you know? Cheers. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but English pronunciations are given according to Help:IPA/English, and the pronunciations you removed at Pinoy are phonemic, so the exact realisation of the diphthong isn't relevant. That's why it's /pɪˈnɔɪ/. Theknightwho (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could always put it like "English and Tagalog: /pɪˈnɔi/". And we'd have the accurate pronunciation of Tagalog and Filipino English, the two official languages of this country. Rolando 1208 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/oi/ is not a phonemic diphthong in English, so no. Theknightwho (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I shall ask Filipino English native speakers for a third opinion then. Rolando 1208 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando 1208, please see my full reasoning for the block. As for this edit, the edit-warring was made worse by the battleground attitude conveyed in the edit-summary. Abecedare (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I just got frustrated that my old contribution from months ago was reverted just like that. Plus, the fact that he seems to be mass reverting my edits didn't help.

How about this "Alright mate, let's figure this one out on the talkpage, shall we?" Is that better? I'll try to be less confrontational from now on. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare He's back at it ([11]). Him demanding (unprompted) that I explain why I didn't add English IPA to a different article doesn't seem reasonable, and is clearly related to the previous dispute over English pronunciations. It's just WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour again. Theknightwho (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding?!?!?!? No man I'm just asking you. Where is this hostility coming from? So what is this about? I can't revert you. Now I can't even asking you a question on the talk page. You want me to assume good faith but you can't extend the same courtesy to me. What I'm supposed to take from this? That consistency is bad? Why is my comment generating such a strong response from you? Please chillax my good lawyer friend. I'm not your enemy. I don't know about you, but I personally find consistency very valuable. Rolando 1208 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Theknightwho, per WP:BATTLEGROUND: "In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints."

Please let us have good faith and disagree respectfully. @Abecedare I'm really trying here. You tell me if I've done something wrong alright? Rolando 1208 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rolando, this comment, especially coming so soon after your block, is not a good sign of your ability to edit collaboratively; nor is the passive-aggressive needling such as I don't know about you, but I personally find consistency very valuable. Please take this as a last warning. I would also suggest that you minimize your interaction with Theknightwho. Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just don't understand. @Theknightwho can make all the edits he wants and I'm never allowed to revert him?? (or even ask him anything on the talk page!!) surely everyone makes mistakes no? He has reverted many of my edits, restoring English IPAs, but I can't ask him about this same topic. I don't see what's wrong in doings things consistently. @Abecedare what am I supposed to do if he keeps reverting my edits? Am I just in the wrong by default? I didn't mean to insult or offend Knight, I was just asking him. He could have explained why this article doesn't require an English IPA but the other ones do. But he's assumed bad faith and tried to get me banned again. Please be impartial. We both have to edit collaboratively, we both have to be civil, we both have to assume good faith. And not try to get each other banned the moment there is a minor disagreement. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rolando, if you want a third opinion on the appropriateness of the phrasing of your comments here and here or here you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE although frankly my strong recommendation would be drop the stick and move on to editing articles that don't involve Theknightwho, and perhaps even IPA and scripts. PS: Do not unnecessarily ping Theknightwho either. Abecedare (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abecedare ok let's say I phrased in a bad way, I just think consistency is something important for Wikipedia. I would like to avoid Theknightwho, he clearly thinks it's something personal, it's not. I just think consistency is important, am I wrong in thinking this way? Another point is that before he mass reverted me we didn't really interact much, but then he chose to mass revert me, he chose to interact with me. Even if I were to accept his reverts (which don't have consensus), I'm concerned he's gonna keep reverting more of my contributions. Can I at the very least revert him if consensus is against him? I'll try to not ping him or reply directly to him as to avoid confrontation. But I think if he can revert me if there's a good reason, so can I, right? As long as my reverts align with policy, guidelines, and consensus. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare Rolando has been doing more of the same in the last few weeks, but this time IP hopping. For instance, see this edit to their old favourite, Ashoka, where they "removed unnecessary info" while conveniently restoring their exact preferred version from before. However, what really gives it away is the (frankly ridiculous) edit warring at Ivory Coast (as an IP), but notice how they're all over the talk page history around the same time ([12]). I think this deserves a longer block, really. Theknightwho (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knight please leave me alone. If you want the IP to get blocked, figure that one out. Stop coming and harassing me on my talk page. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I reverted all of your recent unsourced additions. I get that you're an inclusionist but you still have to source them. That's how things are done here in Wikipedia. You have a problem with an IP? Deal with the IP. But if you ping me, I'm gonna revert your bad edits, whether it's an IP or a registered account. This particular IP removed sourced pronunciations, I won't restore them. Rolando 1208 (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to stop pointing out how you're long-term edit-warring to remove English pronunciations, while doing it as an IP. You were repeatedly told to stop doing this, and clearly have no interest in following consensus. If you can't be honest that that's what you're doing, then you're likely to just get blocked when I eventually go back to WP:ANI for what you're doing. It's not like you've been very good at hiding that it's you, especially given you've just reinstated all of the IP edits with the same edit summary you used as an IP! Plus the fact that you removed the source here shows you're clearly not actually interested in whether pronunciations can be sourced - you just want to remove them, which is the same kind of unreasonable behaviour you've been doing on Ivory Coast as an IP. Theknightwho (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, baseless accusation. As for this, I couldn't verify the source. I'll wait for you to find one with a link. However that one is still better than none at all, we can put it aside for now. The majority of your edits are unsourced though. That's what worries me. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow I wrote "unsourced" it's not like there aren't other users who use similar edit summaries. Do you want me to copy paste a longer reply? Your expectations are unreasonable. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 Alright, I'm just going to take you back to WP:ANI. Theknightwho (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly amazes me how much you claim "consensus" the only one where you actually have consensus is Ivory Coast. Not surprising as this one is actually sourced. Whether you revert IPs or registered accounts, no one seems to mind those edits until you decide to go on a revert rampage. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pretending MOS:DUALPRON doesn't exist. You were also removing sourced pronunciations as an IP (and previously on this account as well), so it's not like you actually care about that. I also noticed that several of your edits had already been reverted, so people clearly do care. Theknightwho (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you made it very clear to me. But DUALPRON or not, you can't stop me from removing unsourced pronunciations. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 These are trivially easy to source, as you can see from my recent contributions, so you obviously didn't even try, and the fact you removed sourced pronunciations using this account and as an IP shows you don't actually care about that. Theknightwho (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually. Now that you added the sources I won't revert you. I'll never understand why you like the Anglicised pronunciations of loanwords so much, but to each their own I guess.

Didn't know you could find all that in the OED. Must be a good dictionary, very thorough. Anyways take care man, may you have a good week! Rolando 1208 (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 This has nothing to do with what I like; it's about describing reality. Theknightwho (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I found ɜː for Ur in Collins. Not sure why OED doesn't have the city though. Rolando 1208 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for this edit you can actually check the title of the book. It's not that long. My edit was correct. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is: https://archive.org/details/pronouncingdicti00boll/page/n5/mode/2up. Theknightwho (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Look at the book cover: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780780800984 Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title page is definitive, not the book cover, which is why the Internet Archive haven't used the cover title, and the IA's interface wouldn't support the full title. We have no such restrictions. Theknightwho (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalised the page about nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nothing&diff=prev&oldid=1234258347 UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four months ago lmao. Ain't got "nothing" better to do? Rolando 1208 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at least read the edit summary? Rolando 1208 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208,the policy explicitly states " There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.",see WP:Vandalism UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

specifically pointing to "illegitimately blanking pages", UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UnsungHistory, please only warn editors about recent editing mistakes, not edits that happened months ago. I'm sure that this editor is aware by now that they shouldn't be blanking pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a sourced pronunciation at Vedas, with the misleading and irrelevant summary It links to the wiki article, not the entry. It does not matter if the source actually links to a URL or not, because it is still a source. Do not do this again. Theknightwho (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho Yes it's a source, but the link always leads to the dictionary entry, I find it odd that it didn't this time. As a reader I don't find it helpful to see the wiki article for the dictionary rather than the definition. Rolando 1208 (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Theknightwho (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. We edit Wikipedia for the readers. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is so obtuse that it hurts. Please listen to others more carefully before repeatedly reverting them. Remsense ‥ 论 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. I only reverted him once. But alright, I'm not edit warring over this. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolando 1208 Reflexively reverting me is not going to get you anywhere, and it's certainly not beneficial to the project. Please just stop doing things like this - you have been asked repeatedly by numerous users not to do it, but you carry on trying to remove pronunciations anyway. I simply cannot see how you think this is helpful to readers. Theknightwho (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that your previous comment was irrelevant? You might want to edit this one. Largoplazo (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]