User talk:194.145.161.227

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tsar

Hi. I am assuming the good faith of your edits related to the status of a Tsar, but please note that the texts that you are editing are in fact referenced and annotated. I will not repeat the details you can find on Talk:Tsar, but regarding specifically Ferdinand (and your edit to Emperor), you may wish to read for example Stephen Constant, Foxy Ferdinand (ISBN: 0283985151). Unless you can verifiably prove the cited scholarship wrong (I am not referring to Constant but to the various authorities cited in the appropriate articles), please cease asserting the mistaken claim that "tsar" means "king," the dualism of the titles of modern Bulgarian monarchs notwithstanding. Best, Imladjov 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: It should be noted

The main purpose of my edits were to clear out the overuse of a cliched phrase that often does nothing but inflate word count. If you feel that there was a benefit to having it in a particular instance, go ahead and reinsert it. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish pronunciation of Kierkegaard

Thank you for your explanation. I have found your answer deeply archived already, glad to have looked. Ah, actually you've taken the trouble to edit the archived page, lucky me :) 212.199.22.182 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsargrad

Thanks for your support. I will return to Tsar when I have more time. In the meantime, could you take a look at this? Also, why don't you log in? It would be easier to follow the articles you edit when you have a regular account and a watchlist. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

Hi. Please take a look at the current edit conflict about External links at the Zionism article. I badly needed some balance and see that you were also interested in this issue, recently. I have found a few links to help balance the perspective in the external links section but its being reverted by another editor. I would appreciate your imput on the matter. I do not want to violate the 3RR rule, but feel that my edit does have support among other editors involved in the article, such as yourself. Thank you. Giovanni33 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire

First of all, you should assume good faith. Making bad faith accusations such as "original research" will not get you very far. This is a sourced addition and has also been documented by Montague Summers, an authority on the subject. However, there are plenty of other sentences in the article that are not sourced and/or "sensational and questionable," thus you may wish to complain about those. Best regards, Nihilum 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You should take your own advice. Firstly, the source is not Summers, so it's not his "interpretation." Secondly, Summers is an authority, as he established the very field of vampire folklore studies. Thirdly, you cannot judge sources, especially not archaeological ones. Nihilum 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your question has been asked and answered. And for the last time, it is not my opinion or interpretation, so kindly do not bother me about this. If you want to complain, complain about all the many other additions which are not sourced, as I have stated above. Regards, Nihilum 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT vandalise the article by unilaterally removing sourced additions. If you do that again, I will report you on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It is not Summers' interpretation, but he references Morgan and another scholar. Again, the source is archaeological. You have no right to remove. Do it again and you will be reported. Nihilum 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the part about persian vampires to the vampire talk page, let's discuss it there instead of starting a revert war in the article itself. I've added a few questions of my own about this bowl. /M.O (u) (t) 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edvard Munch IPA

Hello. Yes, Edvard is pronounced "Edvart" in Norwegian. You're right about the pronunciation of /rd/ as [r]. The combination /rd/ (Old Norse /rð/) doesn't really exist in spoken Norwegian anymore. In most of Norway, as you already know, it is reduced to [r]. In some south-eastern dialects it's pronounced as [ɽ]. In a few given names, like Bård, it can be pronounced [ɖ], though [r] is more common. In other names, like Håvard, the d is hardly ever pronounced. The /rd/ in the name Edvard (and Sigvard, more commonly spelled Sigvart) is however pronounced [ʈ]. Cf. Hamsun's protagonist Edevart in Wayfarers. It's true that [ˈɛdvɑɖ] earlier was a quite common pronounciation among people from the upper-class, whose spoken language to a varying degree was approximating Danish. But I don't think you'll meet any Norwegians saying [ˈɛdvɑɖ] anymore. Devanatha 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diphthong in "boot"

Hi! To be honest, my concern wasn't really the frontness, but just height. I think a diphthongal realization of /uː/ would have to go from a more open position to a more close position. Whenever I've seen diphthongal transcriptions for this phoneme (like in page 9 of this article), they've been [ʊu] or [əu]. (Admittedly, I don't think I've seen many transcriptions that manage to show both the diphthongal and the fronted nature of this phoneme, so I guess my [ʊʉ] would be innovative.) Compare /iː/, which in similar contexts tends to be represented as [ɪi] or [əi] rather than [iɪ]. The thing is that [ʉʊ], strictly speaking, would be a centering diphthong, which I don't think English /uː/ ever is.

I think the best option might be to show the whole diphthong as fronted, in other words X-SAMPA [U\}] or IPA [ʊ̵ʉ]. The problem is that [ʊ̵] isn't an official IPA symbol. I suppose you could use the uglier [ʊ̈ʉ] to achieve the same result.

I don't know; what do you think? --Lazar Taxon 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Byron's Tale

Hi! We have Polidori's account of his conversation with Byron about the latter's tale which suggests that it is was going to be developed as vampire tale, if Byron had got around to finishing it. Colin4C 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts I think you are right...I have just re-read Polidori's remarks and there is no mention that it was originally conceived by Byron as a vampire tale. Polidori says that a lady said to him that it would be impossible to make anything out of Byron's weird fantasy - involving a man who dies out East later seen alive back in England - which gave Polidori the idea that the man must be a Vampyre. The Vampyre was thus Polidori's solution to the impossible riddle posed by Byron's story. I will alter the entry in article forthwith...Colin4C 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)