User talk:BodhiHarp: Difference between revisions

Banned users
None right now

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. See also: WP:V, WP:ORIGINALITY. oklopfer (💬) 18:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra small has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your recently created article to the draft space, as it is poorly sourced, and as this has become a pattern that is frustrating for other editors to clean up. extIPA does not need derivative pages for all of the possible disordered sounds, and we have repeatedly removed or redirected these articles within days of their creation. Please stop creating things in mainspace just to create them, that is what the sandbox is for. I suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:NOT. oklopfer (💬) 18:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it also discusses the nasalized fricative. BodhiHarp 19:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which is mentioned once as a possible historical example, not one actually attested. It is nonsense. oklopfer (💬) 20:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the source you reference there (archive link: [1]) on page 85 references section 29, which on page 21 reads: “In addition, Irish had a spirant m, a nasal in the articulation of which the lips, instead of being closed, formed a narrow friction channel to produce a nasalized β.”

per extIPA, nareal fricatives are restricted to disordered speech, so it could not be considered similar. your grouping of them is erroneous. oklopfer (💬) 21:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than create an entire new page for it, and have us go through the hassle of eventually just merging it into the voiced bilabial fricative page, I have added the relevant and properly sourced information that I have been working on into Voiced bilabial fricative#Nasalized bilabial fricative. I am not sure if it is worth keeping the draft anymore, as all of its useful information is now in that article. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn’t it be a separate page? BodhiHarp 17:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BodhiHarp because it is a varied phonation of the sound, we have been over this many times, and repeatedly asked you not to create these pages. Your reverts just now were incredibly destructive. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bunch of disjointed pages for various realizations of a sound is counterproductive and not at all helpful to a reader. We have been making great efforts recently in consolidating the sounds only possibly represented with diacritics into subsections of their parent symbols or closely related sounds. This is true for raised and lowered variants (like fricative taps & trills), for retracted and advanced variants (like post-palatals), and for nasalized variants (like the nasalized approximants). The exceptions to this are voiceless variants, which per consistency absolutely deserve their own page if attested, and for vowels, where the intermediary heights are quite helpful to distinguish in separate pages. By and large, though, we want things to be kept together, as that will be more helpful for a reader in understanding. As far as I can tell, we no longer have any sounds which require a nasalized diacritic on an independent page anymore, and we should aim to keep it that way.

Removing content to put into your draft just so you can get the clout of saying you created another page is not at all helpful to the betterment of the platform.

@BodhiHarp please read above, as your recent creations of Draft:Post-velar ejective stop and Draft:Voiceless dental trill seem to show you have no regard for this matter. I am requesting that you make the efforts to merge these into Velar ejective stop and Voiceless alveolar trill as subsections, just as we have done for the voiced dental/alveolar/postalveolar trill, and just as we have done for all other postvelars. If you don’t do this, I will, but it will serve as more proof that you care more about your own growth in posterity on the platform than being an actually helpful editor. I moved both of them to draft for now, since even if they did remain separate articles, their current state would not be considered up-to-standard for WP content policy. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-merged voiceless dental trill into Voiceless dental, alveolar and postalveolar trills, while also verifying the details of the Khalkha Mongolian source, fixing the citation, and adding one of the given examples. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources for Draft:Post-velar ejective stop failed verification. When looking into them one clearly states ⟨ḵ⟩ is being used alphabetically to represent a uvular, and the other cites back to WP as its reference, which itself has no sourcing for the phonology section and I have now added cn tagging for. I fixed the example in Voiceless dental, alveolar and postalveolar lateral fricatives#Dental or denti-alveolar which you again WP:CIRCULAR pulled without verifying. It is the same thing over and over again. Do not use Wikipedia as a source. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. oklopfer (💬) 20:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:
The comment the reviewer left was:

No sources?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

qcne (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia’s no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Module:IPA symbol/data. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this original research? BodhiHarp 21:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The symbols that you use often have no precedent and are simply made up. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BodhiHarp it seems you aren’t following this. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oklopfer and Señor verde: Not saying that I agree with BodhiHarp’s edits, but technically they are allowed to remove notices from their talk page with some limited exceptions like unblock requests (see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME). Technically reverting their removals counts as edit warring as well. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realized WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME after I had done so – BodhiHarp, apologies for reverting the removal. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I was made a mistake. señor verde⸻pregúnteme 05:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning(or evening.Or night.) Starry~~(Starlet147) 15:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! LoreSavant (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is your day?(or night or evening) Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Night LoreSavant (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how are you typing if you are creating your account? just being curious. Starry~~(Starlet147) 23:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s now October 16, 2025 LoreSavant (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Starry~~(Starlet147) 12:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move you did contravenes WP:TSC, particularly because almost nobody knows how to enter [letter + combining diacritic]. Please revert to C with breve immediately. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then should we move Ç to C with cedilla and same for others? BodhiHarp 16:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ç is a precomposed character on many keyboards. C̆ is not. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly like to push your luck. I could just about convince myself to WP:AGF that your C-with-breve move was well-intentioned but just ill-considered. That is not true of your move of Ç (Altgr+⇧ Shift+C) (which you did three minutes after your question above, so you could not have believed that it was an uncontroversial move). It just conveys a childish tantrum and was unarguably intended to be disruptive. That’s twice now that someone else has had to clean up after you. So here’s another to add to your list of warnings. Keep this up and I guess you already know how it will end.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not represent a partially voiced [p], it represents a lenis one. p – ᴘ – ʙ – b corresponds to fortis – lenis – partially voiced – fully voiced. There is no equivalent way for this distinction to be represented in IPA, only partial approximations with extIPA diacritics in ad hoc manner. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 17 § JWBS until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. If the purpose of it is to be merged, it has no business being in mainspace. The sources it has are also questionably reliable. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No please stop draftifying it. Just merge it. – BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is zero reason for it to belong in mainspace. It should not be pulled out of draft. You are being an incredibly destructive editor. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just merge it. – BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid reason to – it is not notable at all to warrant its own article; it is in draft form in case any of the information is confirmed to be notable enough and can be moved into the standard alveolar lateral approximant article. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 3 + 3 (math). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Addition. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Addition. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article’s talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making undiscussed moves as you did at linguolabial consonant. It is disruptive and requires a page mover or admin to undo the move. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t assume something is uncontroversial anymore? Also, can’t you in some cases move the page back to the original title? – BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 01:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though your initial move of ⟨ɾ̥⟩ was evidently in good faith and felt uncontroversial, when someone contests the move, that makes it controversial. The move warring of that page has now made a bigger mess than if it had just been brought to the talk page originally. Moves should be treated with higher caution than page edits, as they can be a much bigger pain to clean up. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it’s probably best for you to discuss all of your moves from now onwards unless it’s quite clear that the current page is an obvious typo or something. You aren’t a page mover or admin, so you can’t revert most move vandalism anyways. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your contributions, you are constantly getting into a beef with other editors because despite your inexperience you appear unable to not get your way. We do give latitude to new editors because experienced editors have to start somewhere. Volunteer time is the most precious commodity on this project and you need to be aware that it is disruptive to waste that with nonsense or ill thought through actions that require more time to fix then commit. This is formal notice. That ratio of useful to non useful contributions has to change positively by a significant amount. That means no edit wars. No rogue moves and no stupid appeals.

If you buckle down you will quickly get the hang of things and start to be a positive not a negative, but to do that you have to start considering your impact.

Thanks! Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why you’re doing it, but I am not interested in your attempts to drag me in to comment on every dispute you have on this project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BodhiHarp@BodhiHarp so i used your IPA consonant and Vowels was used for my Fictional Constructed Languages but Please It’s Basically Extralinguistic consonant and Vowels of Exolang which is a Alien Language for Constructed Languages in Fiction Medias Kostya-Artist2005 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostya-Artist2005 You are writing a fictional conlanguage on Wikipedia? Is that why none of your drafts have sources? This is not appropriate for Wikipedia, we do not host personal conlang projects. I will mark your drafts for deletion. qcne (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look I’m Sorry but i know When I used personal Conlang in different wiki website but Look link in the Description for this Conlang wiki: https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Alien Languages Kostya-Artist2005 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So @BodhiHarp i know your sound was okay for my Fictional Constructed Languages in My fiction Literature and So i still obsessed with Any Fiction Literature genres Kostya-Artist2005 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply