User talk:Oklopfer: Difference between revisions

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor’s work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The details of dispute are much too arcane for me but, Oklopfer, your My latest edit attempts to remedy this is not a good indicator of your declared wish to not to engage in an edit war. You both must desist from making any edits to the live article until the dispute is resolved. Put your proposed text in the talk page for discussion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy deletion request at Template:IPA nasal vowels as it is not a blatant hoax or misinformation. You can nominate for deletion at WP:TFD instead if you feel it needs deletion. — Whpq (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i was trying to stick to IPA. we do use obsolete IPA letters elsewhere, but i thought it might be confusing to do the same with diacritics. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami my concern is it hurts the readability of both the page and the symbols when they are stacked; as we state on many of these phonetics pages, certain obsolete diacritics are used for clarity of these symbols (like our discussion with compressed rounding); it also matches the formatting that most of the occurrence examples use in their IPA transcriptions oklopfer (💬) 02:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay. i did that in a couple other places, revert me if you want. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ll do so later today. Thanks again for getting the sources for uvular lateral ejective affricate. oklopfer (💬) 13:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been studying the science alphabet since 2018, please don’t change the symbols into symbols that narrow the space. It must be fit and efficient in a character.

To find the way that compose this: first add /◌̝/ then /◌̊/, not otherwise.

Even, Wikipedia wrote this as [ʎ̝̊], instead of [ʎ̥˔] as what you’ve wrote. Señor verde (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]