User talk:TaalVerbeteraar

The article Moerman diet has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

/r/

Hi,

Please don't change the transcription of English /r/ unless you're willing to go through all 10,000 articles. We use /r/ by consensus, and that's what's on the key that we link to. kwami (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dutch [ɐ]

Thanks for the compliment! I was working off the footnote at WP:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans that says that [ɐ] is an allophone of unstressed /ɑ/ and /aː/. You'll also see that it shows up in the "Marginal vowels" section. I'd say you've highlighted something: this is either 1) some combination of wrong or too much detail; or 2) needs to be made more explicit in the guide. I hope you will raise this issue on the talk page. Cheers! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Property tax

Sorry. English Wikipedia cannot use the "correct" name for tithe in Dutch or any other non-English language. No more than in the Dutch Wikipedia, do readers care to learn that the Americans call an item a "hot dog" or "popup fly" or any other word that does not have some really good reason for being there in non-Dutch. It is of no use and distracting to a reader. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms. Student7 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph containing the Dutch word is about the Dutch situation. Sure, I wouldn't start a general article with e.g. "A hot dog (Dutch: worstenbroodje) ..." but in a paragraph specifically describing the Dutch situation, the Dutch word is at the right place. Or would you propose scrapping the Dutch terms from articles like House of Representatives of the Netherlands, too? Also, the Manual of Style page goes nowhere near saying the the "English Wikipedia cannot use" a Dutch term. Concerning your example: the Dutch Wikipedia actually does say what a hot dog is called in America, see nl:hotdog: In Amerika wordt een hotdog wel een "Frankfurter" genoemd, of "Frank". -- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not editing the Dutch articles, but I would, indeed scrap the Dutch name for House of Reps for Netherlands. The Dutch name is not relevant to English-speaking people, any more than Dutch knowing in the Dutch Wikipedia that Americans call their lower body "The House of Representatives" (probably pretty close to Dutch anyway, I suspect). But it is not relevant. Many Dutch (unlike Americans) have studied English and may even consider it relevant in the Dutch Wikipedia, but I would beg to differ. We are giving neither Dutch lessons to Americans, nor English lessons to Dutch (sorry about the use of the word "Dutch". Just too common in English. A "language" lesson I would give Americans is that people from the Netherlands were mistakenly called Dutch and don't necessarily appreciate it!  :). Student7 (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rethinking this, I am not at all sure that giving the Dutch name for the article's subject is wrong. People might need to know whether it was being translated correctly or not. But that is on something uniquely Dutch, like the "Dutch Parliament", or whatever. Student7 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please explain to me why the Dutch names for things relating to things from the Netherlands (e.g. the Dutch parliament, Dutch property tax) would not be relevant to readers of the English Wikipedia? I happen to think that foreign terms for foreign things are very relevant. For the many people who use Wikipedia as a starting point in their quest for information, the actual name of something can be of much use for further Googling or otherwise seeking information on a particular subject. For example, if I wanted to know more about income taxation in Denmark, I would be very grateful to find the Danish name for income tax so I could look up further information on the subject beyond the pages of wikipedia.org. Without a doubt, this is one of the goals of an encyclopedia. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC). P.S. The word "Dutch" is not offending to people from the Netherlands, nor is it a mistake. As the word "Netherlandic" is not currently an adjective for things relating to the Netherlands, the word "Dutch" is the right adjective to use. It would be a mistake, however, and possibly an offensive one, to confuse the words "Dutch" and "Deutsch". Also, referring to the whole of the Netherlands as Holland may be considered offensive by people living in one of the other 10 provinces.

Acting President

See this report from Israel National News click here for evidence of him being the Acting President of Egypt.

--86.146.107.190 (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that article says that Omar Suleiman, not Mohamed Tantawi, is the acting president. Plus, Israel National News does not remotely qualify as a major news agency and is therefore not a reliable source for this kind of edits. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

moved comment

Hello Taal, I just wanted to let you know that I've moved your recent comment on Talk:2011 Libyan protests from the Talk:2011 Libyan protests#Requested move section to the Talk:2011 Libyan protests#Proposed move - 2011 Libyan civil war section. In reading your comment, it seemed obvious to me that you were discussing the "2011 Libyan civil war" proposal, making your comment more appropriate for that section.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ohms law,

Actually the comment did belong in the section I posted it in, only due to some careless copy-pasting from another comment I mistakenly said "civil war" where I actually meant "any name that speculates on the outcome of these protests". Sorry for the confusion & I moved back my comment with some corrections. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'd hope that you would reconsider your stance in light of recent events, is all. See Mtsmallwodd's recent comments in the Talk:2011 Libyan protests#Requested move section, for example. Note that I'm not out to "prove you wrong", to you or anyone else. It just seems as obvious as the (rather large) nose on my own face that what's occurring in Libya right now is much more then protests. I don't understand how, or why, you would disagree with that. Can you explain it to me? (note: I see that the Wiktionary entry doesn't make it very clear, but to native English speakers the word "protest" is fairly... "light". it doesn't seem very serious. Of course, I'm American, so maybe that is coloring my views somewhat [seeing as how we have a right to free speech and all...]? "uprising", to me, describes some event where people take a tangible action against the government. "protest", to me, describes and event where people simply voice their opinion that something or other "sucks". it therefore seems obvious to me, a native English speaker who happens to be an American, that "uprising" is a much better word choice then "protests".) (That's actually an excellent explaination, if I do say so myself. I'm going to copy that to the Libyan protests talk page...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep to the denotations of nouns instead of the connotations they might have for us, shall we? Full response at Talk:2011 Libyan protests. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RM on Libyan article

please don't remove the RM again. You're obviously not going to keep people from talking about it (and neither is anyone else), which is why I spent a consideramount of time creating that page.

Also, don't be concerned about the location of the move request. That it's located on a sub-page is not a problem. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much resent the accusation that I am trying to "keep people from talking about it". I merely removed a template which was very much ill-placed, as it displayed the text "It has been proposed in this section that Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move be renamed and moved (...)". It is not customary to put such templates on talk subpages. I suggest you do a bit of reading at WP:GOODFAITH before you go on accusing other Wikipedians of censorship.- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desker

I seek your aid on this user, because he has returned to making questionable edits, claiming "NPOV" ([1]), and even going as far as calling me a "sockpuppet" ([2]), with no evidence at all. Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It now appears all of his recent China-related edits have been undone, but this is no reason to not be vigilant. Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are definitely not a mew user. You first edits here is involvement in disputes, and your edit pattern is untypical of a new user. The question is who's sockpuppet are you, may be it will be known with time. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you guys please continue this discussion somewhere outside my talk page? I literally have nothing to do with your dispute and, since I'm not a moderator or admin, I fail to see why I am being asked for help in this matter. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising

Regarding your recent edit, when I said the Syrians were using "nonviolent tactics", I was referring to the fact that they generally haven't resorted to physical violence as a means of protest. But you're probably right, there's been too much fighting going on to call the protests "nonviolent". Master&Expert (Talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please quit removing Hezbollah from the infobox, they have been added in compliance with WP:IRS and Wikipedia:SPS, so unless you are disputing the The Jerusalem Post's reliability there's no reason for you to remove Hezbollah from the infobox at the very least, since according to the very policies you quote Newspapers are valid sources unless they are judged unreliable. Thegunkid (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the Jerusalem Post's reliability (although it would be naïve not to note the fact that the newspaper is based in Israel, a country openly hostile to the Assad government), I'm disputing the reliability of this particular JP article. It quotes an unnamed person who is supposedly a "senior official" in the Iranian army, saying something rather vague, namely that "Hezbollah responded swiftly to [Iran's] request for assistance". Neither he nor the author of the article elaborates on what exactly this "assistance" amounted to. This is not nearly enough to warrant an inclusion of Hezbollah and/or Iran in the infobox. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article, which you consistently failed to do, first off, it was a IRGC commander, there's a difference between them and the proper Military of Iran, secondly, the first paragraph of the article clearly states this - "Hezbollah forces were activated in Syria to prevent the takeover of sensitive Iranian assets in the region by anti-government protesters" Thegunkid (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually did read the article. I see you think the sentence you quoted isn't vague at all, but absolutely clear. Then please enlighten me and tell me what "activated" is supposed to mean here? Are we talking about military offensive? Counterintelligence activities? Hezbollah militants standing guard in front of the "sensitive Iranian assets"? Or even something else entirely? The article doesn't in fact elaborate on this. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

News blogs

Blogs may be unreliable in some cases but the same can't be said for news blogs, which this was. The Libyan civil war and the Syrian uprising articles use hundreds of references from Al Jazeera's news blogs. How come you haven't removed those? Please explain. Also, you must put forward evidence that the blog in question is really unreliable. How do you know this news blog is unreliable? Also, the source in question didn't make up their own numbers, the numbers were cited by the information provided from the Syrian military. EkoGraf (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The explanation for the apparent inconsistency is simple: this blog ("Mediawerkgroep Syrië") caught my attention because it was a new addition to the article. I haven't gone over the whole article to check for blogs used as references. Regarding your argument that news blogs are admissable as sources, I'm seeing a clear difference between a The Guardian liveblog or an Al Jazeera news blog on the one hand and a Wordpress blog on the other. In general, WP:BLOGS disallows the use of blog articles as sources except "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The "about" page of the Mediawerkgroep Syrië says no more about the identity of its editors than that they are "volunteers". There is nothing on the blog that suggests that it fulfills the "established expert" criterion. The blog article in question claims to have got its figures from the Syrian Center for Documentation and SANA, so why not use those as references instead of a blog? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The blog did point to SANA's website (as a source) where the various articles (references), with the names of the 309 soldiers killed during that period, are listed. You only need to scroll through them. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So why don't you use that page on the SANA website as a reference then, instead of the blog? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Cause it would end up being like a link farm due to 7-8 different articles on the different military funerals being used as sources for just one number, the 309 one. Also I'm afraid it could be seen by some administrators as OR if we combine the numbers from all of the SANA articles for just that one. This way there was already one unifying source for the number. How do you suggest we proceed? EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Syrian Talk page

I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011–2012_Syrian_uprising Sopher99 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited National IT and Telecom Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Economic Affairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Assad regime

Its called Assad regime all the time on BBC and in british press and newspapers e.g [3] just because yu love gaddafi and assad and speak a language all your own you shouldn't make wp a ghetto for your preferred language. - like green square still , if you had your way. taré. Sayerslle (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian protest article needs a proper move discussion

Hello TaalVerbeteraar. Regarding your move request here. This appears to require a new move discussion. You are citing an informal talk discussion which ended on 5 January 2012 as a reason for keeping the old article name. That was well before the 2012 presidential election. Does not seem to be enough data to show that the name you prefer has current consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian page

Either you keep it in the FSA section or I add these abuses by the Syrian government to the lede

Killing of refugees

Placing landmines

Torture and execution in military hospitals

Human shields

Deployment of Shabiha

Kidnappings

Killing of journalists domestic and international

Leaked documents allegedly proving Bashar Assad direct involvement

Massive bombarded of Homs and Baba Amr

Preventing Red crescent workers from entering besieged areas

Condemnations by Human rights watch, Amnesty international, the UN, Arab League, International red crescent ect

Why should you list the abuses of the FSA out in the lede when we don't even get to list those abuses by the government in the lede? YOu are blatantly trying to make the rebels and government seem equal. Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, we don't get to list the abuses by the government in the lede? Then what do you call the 5 sentences about children allegedly being killed and tortured by the government? Also, if I recall correctly, it was you who wrote that lead in the first place. I didn't take part in the discussion on it so don't blame me for not including government atrocities in it. As far as I am concerned, you can go ahead and list government atrocities in the lead (as long as they're documented by a reliable source, such as the UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch etc.). But don't simply delete all references to rebel atrocities from the lead. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the UN, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch are reliable sources. (The last two are in fact privately funded propaganda outlets.) They can only be used if their claims are clearly attributed to them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are reliable sources. They are not profit organizations so of course they get private funding. Propaganda? Really? What is a rights organization supposed to say, that there are only human rights abuses in the developed world and none in undeveloped world? Sopher99 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You are of course free to believe anything AI and HRW say. They are however not reliable sources – as in WP:RS. On Wikipedia they are more like WP:ACTIVIST sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do not share your view on Amnesty and HRW, I actually did clearly attribute the rebel atrocities claim to HRW. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I curtailed/shortened that paragraph to the basics. I could have wrote a far more condemning but neutral paragraph. Sopher99 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Any way my point is that i have nothing against you but the additions make it seem that FSA and government forces are on the same level, even though they are not. Sopher99 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll keep it in the lede though, but i am shortening the sentence, and allowing it to be elaborated on in the Free Syrian army subsection. Sopher99 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Muta

Hi, can you please provide a reference for the claim that Muta is Styrian? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source to the article. If you have any additional information, please add it, and don't forget to cite your sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you're interested, I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you're quite right of course, I should've added a reference. Thank you for taking the time of doing it yourself instead. Thank you for the invitation as well, I'll take it into consideration. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

National Liberation Armies

I think the whole new set of articles should be reverted and made into redirects to the previous ones. They are nothing more then copyvios and WP:POVFORKs. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried doing that, but EllsworthSK just reverts them back, accusing me of 'vandalism'. On the AfD pages he's even trying to argue that the original articles are the forks... Better leave an admin to handle this. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to sleep now. What I will do before that is one round of redirects and reverts. If the problem resurfaces please take the issue to an administrator. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I was late. I see you have already taken the articles to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan National Army, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Ground Forces. It would have been easier just to rediret :-( Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the history of the articles; I agree that redirecting would be easier so I indeed tried that, but EllsworthSK just undoes the edits. E.g. I tried here and this was the result. So instead of starting an endless edit war I decided to nominate them for deletion the official way. However, there's still Libyan Air Force which I haven't taken to AfD because that one is an even more blatant verbatim copy-paste of an existing article than the other two. You're welcome to assist there. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Broken English

In regard to this, there's a bit more to it than just language... I'm thinking of a line from the Osdorp Posse's "Hyper dan hype". Drmies (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Thanks for making more than a thousand edits to help improve current events articles. Keep up the good work! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

regime

didnt you say encyclopedia editors aren't free to use the word regime - you said that in your edit summary - journalists are free to use the word but not encyclopedia editors. that is utter lying garbage. i say it again. arent you green square taal verbter? youve got a pov and you seek to enforce it and then give out pious homilies about npov. Sayerslle (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Some random guy moved the Syrian uprising article

...to civil war in spite of no consensus. I want an admin to close the debate. I am complaining and hope you will too. Tradedia (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would just wait for an admin to close the discussion before going at it with the other editor's POV if both sides here have a truce and an admin closes the discussion with a final say then we can go from there. I have placed a notice on WP:ANI reguarding this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, i was moved the article, but only by opinion of the United Nations. Doncsecz^talk 06:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

English pronunciation

Per this edit, you might want to take a look at WP:IPA for English. English transcriptions at Wikipedia are normally phonemic, so things like aspiration aren't shown. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Riad Hijab

I don't think we should include Riad Hijab in the infobox as the information we have is that he planned his defection before he was appointed two months ago. His aid is confirming it too.

Also, Reuters has wrote in his report that the Prime minister was a powerless role in Syria --DanielUmel (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

He was the Syrian prime minister for two months. His defection or dismissal doesn't suddenly erase that. Neither does the claim that he planned his defection before he was appointed (what is that even supposed to mean? how can one plan to defect from a function they don't even hold yet?) negate his two months in function. And that the PM is supposedly 'powerless' doesn't change the fact that he was part of the government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In Syria Prime minister is powerless. That take him out of the main commanders. And he planned his defection to the opposition before he was appointed as Prime minister so he can not be included under his Prime minister office because he was already a double agent. Really, there is not point of having him in the infobox. He was never part of any military command chain and never was (under his prime minister office) on the governement side. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read up on the terms de facto and de jure. He might not have been de facto in power, but he was the de jure head of government so he should be included in the infobox as such. And please do not believe everything people say. This 'double agent' / 'planned to defect before he was even appointed' thing is highly implausible. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, in my view, this is higly implausible that he was loyalist when he accepted the job, if he had been loyalist, he would not have run away two months later. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Riyad Farid Hijab

It appears that you've reverted at Riyad Farid Hijab 4 times in a 24 hour period ([4], [5], [6], and [7]), which is particularly notable as you've been acting against the talk page consensus. Please review WP:3RR and self-revert your latest edit. Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply is at User talk:Khazar2. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:3RR. You don't need to revert the same material; all you have to do is keep reverting to be in violation, which it appears to me that you are. Khazar2 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Syria's independence flag

I recommend you read this article, it might help clear up some of your false assumptions regarding Syria's past (and future) flag: A Word On The Syrian Independence Flag حرية (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a neutral source, is it? It's a pro-rebel blog post, branding anyone who disagrees an "Assad supporter". Secondly, I never claimed that the flag was devised by the French, I merely stated that the flag was introduced during the French Mandate. That's not a false assumption, that's fact. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what your point is? The name of the flag is "Independence flag". Like the flag of the UK is called the "union jack". The sources used explain that fact, and use the title in that manner. Just because you apparently like the current Stalinist regime in Syria, it does not give you the right to deny the given name of a flag. That is just plain weird. حرية (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All your references for the name 'independence flag' date from during the uprising, after the rebels started using it. Do you have any references that say its actual name (when it was actually an official flag, 1932-1958 / 1961-1963) was 'independence flag'? And I mean reliable references (history books etc.) not the bloody Financial Times. Since when is an economics newspaper an authority on state flags? The "supporter of Stalinist" blahblah won't get you anywhere, by the way. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So you aren't denying that you enjoy the finer points of Ba'athism. Interesting. Anyway, the financial times is a better source than this in a reference:

Random Wikipedia User TaalVerbeteraar does not like the name that reputable sources give the Syrian Independence flag.

I think most users (as well as WP:policy) would agree. The burden of proof is on you buddy, no where else will you find another name for this flag. حرية (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another classic fallacy, the argumentum ex silentio: because I didn't explicitly say that I reject Ba'athism, I must be a Ba'athism supporter. Interesting (not). Kindly stop littering my talk page with your nonsense and read WP:RS before quoting the Financial Times as a "reputable source" on flags again. Bye now. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a reputable source period. You and your own opinions are not. Get over it. حرية (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's a reputable source you need to read WP:RS. Particularly the bit that says: context matters. On the subject (context) of vexillology, the Financial Times is not a reputable source. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but shouldn't the issue be more Borzou Daragahi than the Financial Times? I can't access the Financial Times anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

As is explained in the article itself, it was the flag in use when Syria gained independence... AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly User:AnonMoos. This is a total non issue. For further reading I suggest you also read notable Syria acedemic Sami Moubayed's excellent article for Foreign Policy, which specifically addresses User:TaalVerbeteraar's misconceptions, as well as page 46 of Fred H. Lawson's Stanford University Press work Constructing International Relations in the Arab World, which quotes a Syrian government National Bloc proclamation from October 1941, giving the name of the flag as the "Independence flag". It always amazes me when users demand an inordinate amount of references while providing none what-so-ever themselves. حرية (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Shi Jin Ping pronunciation

Hello

The Pronunciation Respelling 'j' most closely resembles the actual pronunciation of the 'J' in Shi Jin Ping. The IPA English approximation for the pinyin 'j' of 'itchy' is not a good representation. This should sound more like 'idgy' to be correct. In fact at Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_affricate the recording of 'Beijing' is just how the 'j' should sound, which is odd because that is exactly the IPA representation given. The upshot is, I believe, that IPA is incorrect in describing the pronunciation of pinyin 'j' and consequently PR is incorrect in mapping that to 'ch'. Therefore the PR representation should be Shee Jin Ping. Actually there is no symbol at Wikipedia:IPA_for_Mandarin that does have a correct 'j' English approximation. However I admit to not being a phoneticist, therefore, assuming the IPA actually does make sense, then it is just the PR that is wrong, so I suggest that the PR representation be deleted. The alternative, of editing the PR page, would, I suppose, have a much larger impact.

Mongbei (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you know more about the pronunciation of Mandarin than I do, but we can't have the IPA transcription and the pronunciation respelling contradicting each other. To me, the sound in File:Zh-Beijing.ogg does sound like a voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, by the way. While not identical to the sound in the English word itch (that sound is a voiceless palato-alveolar affricate) it is usually represented by ch in English transcriptions (e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it is misleading to have contradictory representations. At least the PR representation is wrong, and only confuses. Therefore I suggest the PR is removed. 'Gorbachev' and 'Beijing' are different sounds - as different as 'chin' and 'gin'. Beijing, Hujintao and Nanjing all have the same IPA element and do not have pronunciation respelling (though Nanjing has a Wade-Giles representation, presumably for historic reasons). Actually I can't see the point of PR for Mandarin, Pinyin already has a clear phonetic mapping Pinyin#Initials_and_finals and is generally straightforward to read in any case.

I'll remove the PR representation on this page?

Mongbei (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, the sounds in Gorbachev and Beijing are exactly the same: [ʨ]. That is how they sound to my ears as well. You seem to be suggesting that the sound in Beijing is actually a voiced alveolo-palatal affricate ([d͡ʑ]) rather than its voiceless counterpart, but I don't see any indications for that being the case. The article Mandarin phonology does not have [d͡ʑ], nor does Pinyin#Initials_and_finals, and the Mandarin pronunciation in the article Beijing is given as [peɪ˨˩ t͡ɕiŋ˥] as well. Instead of removing the pronunciation respelling, I'd rather see some references for your claim that the sound is really [d͡ʑ]. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting that the sound is nearer to a voiced alveolo-palatal affricate ([d͡ʑ]). However 'j' in Chinese is only ever used in front of a 'i' or a ü sound so actually it is still not quite right to simplify this as a consonant sound on its own. Therefore I am also saying that by using the pronunciation respelling of 'ch' this moves the sound further from a correct one. However I admit to not knowing enough about phonetics to continue this on phonetic grounds. I propose, therefore, leaving the IPA for the phoneticists to make head or tail of, but to remove the pronunciation respelling which would otherwise result in non-Chinese speakers saying the wrong thing. You will find the difference when you say 'Shee Gin Ping' and 'Shee Chin Ping', the former is much closer to the actual pronunciation, the latter implies a pinyin of 'xi qin ping'. My claim is only based on asking native Chinese speaking friends and colleagues to carefully pronounce 'Beijing' and 'Xi Jin Ping' in Putonghua. I speak Chinese and live in China. I am a native English speaker.

Mongbei (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Referring to Template:Respell#Where_to_use 'The respelling key covers only English pronunciation, and should not be used for foreign names or words which have not been assimilated into English.' . So I've decided to remove the pronunciation respelling on the page.

Mongbei (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Languages of Ukraine

Hi, It is not considered acceptable to link to an article in another language as you did for Tirivitsi. Unless you indicate in a note that they are going to Wikipedia in the Ukrainian language. And I don't think that would really fit in this table. Keizers (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Response can be found here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take my comment personally or as an insult - sounds like you did. I make these comments in the spirit of improving the articles and following such "rules" as there are. You mentioned a different error I did commit about the spelling of Tarasivtsi, and you are absolutely correct - thanks for fixing the spelling! BTW I created an article in English for Tarasivtsi, and is think I got it right in the article name. But as for the other issue, I really do need to insist that I have always seen, that if there is a link to another language Wikipedia, there is always some kind of indication, for example, "see the article in German Wikipedia" (I have even made that kind of link myself). But definitely not just link to it and (surprise!) the user finds himself on a page in another language. I have personally been reprimanded for that before (on Dutch Wikipedia BTW, for linking to English articles, before I knew...)

I found some helpful information here: Help:Interlanguage_links#Inline_interlanguage_links which are some templates you can use so that a language indicator will appear after your link Keizers (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so much insulted as slightly annoyed by your use of words. Generally, starting a sentence with "It is not considered acceptable to..." doesn't prelude friendly advice. Interwiki links to other-language Wikipedias are in a different colour to normal wikilinks (compare Tarasivtsi and uk:Тарасівці (село)), so readers have no reason to be surprised to find themselves outside the English-language Wikipedia after clicking on it. Nice job on creating the Tarasivtsi article BTW; I used the Ukrainian link because I didn't think this barely-notable town would ever get an article on the English Wikipedia. Now you've created it, the point of this discussion has become moot. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

YPF

Please leave comments at Talk:YPF#Edit war Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Manas transit center new commander.

COL Jacobson is at Fairchild AFB now as the wing commander, COL Martin is the new wing commander.

http://www.manas.afcent.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=8626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.29.60.60 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but blanking sections qualifies as vandalism nonetheless. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RE

Sorry, But a coup d'état happens suddenly, Then the country is being ruled by a military Junta, but what happened is not a coup, as an Interim President Holds the place of his predecessor, Then Democratic Elections starts to Determine who's The Next President, It is the Achievement of The Egyptian People Demands . --CaeserKaiser (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The term 'coup d'état' doesn't say anything about the aftermath (junta, democracy, or otherwise). It simply says someone (in this case the military) removed the head of state in a non-democratic way. That's exactly what happened in Egypt. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Very Democratic, Not Suddenly Making The Decision Of Deposing Morsi Without Looking To The Mass Protests Across The Country That Demanded The Removal Of The Regime . --CaeserKaiser (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RE

There Were Ongoing Mass Protests That Demanded The Removal Of The Regime, Then The Army Gave The Both Sides A Week To Solve Their Differences, Then Gave Them An Extra 48 Hours, Then Morsi Threatened The Opposition In His Last Dialogue And Didn't Listen To The Other Side, So The Military Didn't Have A Choice But To Achieve The People Demands. The Military Saved The Country From Civil War. So, That's Not A Coup . Stop Following CNN And AJE Channels Alike . --CaeserKaiser (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The military removed the president. That is a coup. End of discussion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You're Stupid And The People Alike You .. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crème fraîche may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Crème fraîche

Hello, the page Help:IPA for French possesses a distinction between /ɛ/ and /ɛː/. We can write /kʁɛm fʁɛːʃ/. 64.18.87.72 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No we cannot, as it is not pronounced that way. Yes, the sound /ɛː/ exists in French, but it is used only in certain words and under certain conditions, see French phonology#Length. Fraîche is not such a word. In Metropolitan French it is invariably pronounced as /kʁɛm fʁɛʃ/ and in Quebec French it is pronounced neither with /ɛː/ nor with /ɛ/. So why would we include the pronunciation /fʁɛːʃ/ which, in the real world, isn't used by any native speaker? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.forvo.com/search/crème fraîche/ 198.105.103.101 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Forvo is user-made, like Wikipedia. It can hardly be used as a proper reference. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

See http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Annexe:Prononciation/français#Changements_historiques, that is a distinction between /ɛ/ and /ɛː/ in traditional French. 198.105.119.21 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That page says "L’API du français traditionnellement utilisé reflète une prononciation vieille de plus d’un siècle", and about /ɛ/ and /ɛː/: "Le Wiktionnaire ne distingue pas les deux." Or in English: distinguishing /ɛ/ and /ɛː/ [in Parisian French] has been obsolete for more than a century and Wiktionary doesn't distinguish the two. So why exactly do you propose that we use this long-outdated pronunciation in a Wikipedia article? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I remove the sound /ɛː/ in the page Help:IPA for French ? 198.105.118.13 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because the sound does in fact exist in modern (metropolitan) French. But only in certain cases: "All vowels are lengthened if followed by one of the consonants /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /ʁ/ (not in combination), or by the cluster /vʁ/." (source: French phonology#Length). In the word 'fraîche', there is no /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /ʁ/ or /vʁ/, hence it is simply pronounced /fʁɛʃ/. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You hear [tεːt] or [taɪ̯t] ? 64.18.87.72 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, an anonymous user posted on my talk page saying that beige and mer do not have the phoneme /ɛː/. I told him or her you were the one to put those words in, and I do not know enough to confirm whether he or she is right. But working off of the French phonology and Phonological history of French articles, it seems he is right; here on this talk page you are not speaking of phonemic but phonetic length, when you say that /ɛː/ is found before certain consonants. On the contrary: it is [ɛː], an allophone of the /ɛ/ phoneme, that is found before /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /ʁ/ or /vʁ/. The /ɛː/ phoneme, when it exists, is not restricted in distribution.

The page on the French Wiktionary also says, right before the second sentence you quote, On la trouve cependant en français de Belgique et en français québécois, où /ɛ/ est marqué principalement par ai, ei et è alors que /ɛː/ par aî, eî et ê, which I believe indicates that French in Belgium and Quebec does distinguish the phonemes, unlike Parisian French. That is more or less what Help:IPA for French says in its note on the phoneme.

If we include [ɛː] as a lengthened allophone of /ɛ/ on the IPA for French page, we should also include the long forms of all the other vowels listed in French phonology: length (for example, the [iː] in livre). ɛː was not, I think, included with that intent. It is included to represent the phoneme that no longer exists in Parisian French, but apparently exists in other dialects. Otherwise the other vowels that are lengthened before /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /ʁ/ or /vʁ/ would also have been included. — Eru·tuon 01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Belarus geographical mess

I'm getting unstuck in trying to compile a table of terminology for the Belarus geographical naming conventions. There appears to be a flood of new articles and stubs recently and it appears that English Wikipedia is now leading the way with transliteration/transcription norms (which, as we know, simply isn't Wikipedia's role). As the contributors don't seem to know what to do other than follow the current directives, we're ending up with orphaned pages and broken links absolutely everywhere.

My thoughts are to follow the Belarusian government standards for the English speaking world (which DON'T involve the irritating version of what is essentially Latinka), i.e. as laid out per this map and other official sites. What's good enough for the Belarus government should be good enough for us.

You can check the sad beginnings in my sandbox. Any constructive input from sensible Wikipedians would be appreciated.

I've left this message on Ymblanter and Ezhiki's pages as well. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions?

Hi, TaalVerbeteraar. I'd be grateful for any input on this matter on my talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

IPCC AR5 report

Hi, It's great that you're eager to revise the climate pages with AR5. However I just reveretd the reference you added for reasons stated here. By all means, add a pinpoint cite to the Summary for Policymakers! If you haven't found samples here, you can open Global warming in edit mode, and search for "Summary for Policymakers", then use that as a template. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Веселых праздников!

Желаю вам всего самого наилучшего в новом году! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please refrain from edit warring and ignoring talk pages. Be aware of WP:3RR Львівське (говорити) 18:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about source

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Farmacotherapeutisch_Kompas_-_MEDRS.3F Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TaalVerbeteraar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TaalVerbeteraar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TaalVerbeteraar. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)