User talk:LakeKayak

Welcome!

Hello, LakeKayak, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take 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! Reb1981 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LakeKayak, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LakeKayak! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cot-caught merger

Hello! When you copy passages from one Wikipedia article to another as you did at Cot-caught merger, please follow the instructions at Copying within Wikipedia to make sure that proper attribution is given for copyright purposes. I've gone ahead and put an appropriate template on the talk pages of both articles, so this is just for future reference. Thanks! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take your advice for next time.LakeKayak (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cot-caught merger(2)

Re message on my talk page: OK, I've removed that sentence (I don't know why you blanket reverted the whole of my changes though; was it a mistake?) But I hope you understand my point about the need to mention the pre-r cases at some point. If we don't, then we give the impression that the /A/ vs. /O/ merger is a complete one (in N. American dialects with the merger) while in fact it is a conditioned one (not taking place before /r/ - most standard analyses seem to have phonemically the same /A/ and /O/ in the START and NORTH words as they do in the LOT and THOUGHT ones). Also I don't think you are right about those two symbols in the lead being "the conventional" notation for these two (dia)phonemes - they are the conventional notation for RP, but the varieties we are considering may not be related to RP at all. If we put IPA notation in the lead, I think we have to give more information and at least the GAm equivalents as well. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the symbols were "conventional." I said they were "traditional."LakeKayak (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry to have misquoted you, but the point still stands - since most of the article is about North America, it is misleading to use in the lead only symbols that are really only applicable outside North America. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am a little annoyed. This page was a break off of the page Phonological history of English low back vowels. The idea was to keep most of the wording the same. Other users whom I have happened to encounter a lot from reading the linguist pages, like AJD, have made changes to the page, but nothing really radical. Some of your changes seemed rather blind, like changing "gone" and "John" to "talk" and "shock." Also, the original page used the IPA symbols. I see no reason why to change it now. Over and out.LakeKayak (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are just blindly reverting everything I do. This isn't good for Wikipedia, nor does it have any sense. You haven't addressed my point, nor even apparently looked at the changes I'd made, which in the end did retain (and improve on) the use of IPA symbols. I notice that in the version you've restored, the lead actually contradicts the body of the article (the North American section) about what the symbols are. You've also removed other explanatory text (including text explaining the other bolded names given in the lead) for no reason except that you apparently regard adding text to an article as "too radical". Wikipedia articles are not supposed to stay the same for ever (quite the reverse), nor are they supposed to be the domain of a single editor. We are supposed to be cooperating to make this and other articles better. (About gone and John: the reason for this is obvious I think - these words rhyme in many accents anyway, regardless of the cot-caught merger.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have three things to say.

• First, "about gone and John," if that was your problem, then you actually could have just said so. As the problem is addressed, I know that we should not use those examples from now on.
• Secondly, I am hesitant to use the vowel symbol /ɑː/ for the short-o class because that is the symbols used for the "ah" vowel. Not even all American accents have the father-bother merger. So, it is a little easier to use the traditional IPA symbols for the vowel classes in order to prevent confusion.
• Third, I was looking to expand the article and possibly to add a section on the cot-caught merger in the British Isles. Therefore, I was trying to steer away from that "Americocentric" view per se, that was reported to be a problem with Phonological history of English low back vowels. Introducing the vowels in American English in the opening paragraph brings back that "Americocentric view."

That's all.LakeKayak (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would rather not be redundant. Therefore, I am going to remove the following line from the section "Overview" because the line is addresses in the introduction:

The change is sometimes referred to as the low back merger, since the sounds involved are low (i.e. open), back vowels (rounded or unrounded, depending on variety).

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy not to introduce IPA American symbols in the introduction, but in that case, we should also not use the British (what you call the "traditional") ones - or if we do, then we should explain carefully what we are doing. I certainly agree that there should be a section on the merger in the British Isles, alongside the one on North America. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think the "low back merger" point has been addressed in the lead, though. The name is given, but no explanation of why that is the name (bear in mind that many readers will not have heard of "low vowels" and "back vowels", as these are quite technical terms). W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By using the format, when readers scroll over the IPA symbols, a small textbox comes up identifying the sound class:

• two opening curly brackets + "IPA|" + symbol + two closing curly brackets"

I'll get to work on that.LakeKayak (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but there's no reason to assume that all readers will do that. There is plenty of space on Wikipedia pages; there's no harm at all (and plenty of good) in writing things out as clearly as we can in the text of the article, with links to other relevant articles that explain the meanings of terms. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm planning to rename the article to Cot–caught merger, i.e. with a dash instead of a hyphen, which seems to be the Wikipedia punctuation style (and is used in the introduction anyway). You don't object? We can't do it yet, though, as an admin still has to delete the redirect page that is occupying that title. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't object.LakeKayak (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can see you made a comment to one of my edits. I myself did not use the word "conventional." It was an older version that actually was the work of so many people that I wished to keep the influence of their contributions to the page.LakeKayak (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the comment on the IPA symbols.

That may be true, but there's no reason to assume that all readers will do that. There is plenty of space on Wikipedia pages; there's no harm at all (and plenty of good) in writing things out as clearly as we can in the text of the article, with links to other relevant articles that explain the meanings of terms.

I just remembered. There is a way to describe the classes using the lexical set that I saw on New York City English. I think if the lexical sets are used, for consistency sake, it is probably best to use them in the format found on some other Wikipedia pages.LakeKayak (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what format you mean. For now, you seem to have removed the information I added about lexical sets, without replacing it anywhere else. We should certainly analyse the merger in terms of lexical sets, as well as in terms of IPA (from both a British and American point of view) - there is plenty of "room" for all of this, and if we omit any of it, we make the article less understandable or more misleading to readers with certain backgrounds. There's really no need to keep removing explanations, as you seem to be doing at the moment. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there isn't much that I will do about it, I really feel that the description of lexical sets should be subtle. Here was the format used on the page New York English describe a merger between shore and sure:

/ɔːr/~/ɔər/, as in Tory, bore, or shore merges with a tongue movement upward in the mouth to /ʊər/, as in tour, boor, or sure.

So, I simply thought to mimic that structure. That's all.LakeKayak (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be fine for the introduction, but after that I think we should have a section (perhaps titled with something more specific than the present "Overview") in which everything is written out in detail - in terms of both lexical sets and IPA symbols and any other systems of symbols commonly used in the literature on the topic. It's a bit complicated but if we write it out explicitly, readers should be able to get it, whatever their background. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@W. P. Uzer:I think you might into something over your head. I don't recall seeing that detailed of a description on a Wikipedia page before. Also, as an issue, some dictionaries, like Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, use proprietary sets of symbols. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to list every single proprietary set. However, I could see the symbols used by the AHD listed, already recognized as a standard. (I had to learn that notation back in elementary school.) But yet again, I don't think the AHD makes a distinction between the "a" in "father" and the "o" in "bother." So, if we use the same symbol, we would be reflecting the father–bother merger, a merger that only occurs in American English. With that alone, the page automatically becomes an American-centered article, which was the exact thing I wanted to avoid. All said, although you may try, it might not work.LakeKayak (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the a in father and the o in bother are distinguished in the AHD notation after all.LakeKayak (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey English

Hello, LakeKayak. A few comments. You tend to use "apart" (which means "separate" or "split") when you mean to say "a part". Also, you should not bold words on a WP page unless it is the title of the page. Lastly, I don't recommend quoting text from scholarly linguistic articles with technical language that could be better explained in your own words for non-expert readers. If you don't mind, I'm going to edit your New Jersey English changes to make them read smoother, while keeping the same information. Wolfdog (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that words were not supposed to be bolded. I took the formatting on the pages "Cot-caught merger" and "Phonological history of English low back vowels" when the "ON line" is described. However, thanks for the information. I'll keep that in mind for next time. And no, I don't mind if you edit my changes.LakeKayak (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Now, I see what you mean by using "apart" as opposed to "a part." That was a typo.LakeKayak (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, also, the Aschmann website appears to be a kind of personal or blog site, rather than a scholarly linguistics site. It is probably not reliable [by the way, I mean "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense of "reliable sources"; I don't mean to imply that the Aschmann site is overall untrustworthy] or peer-reviewed in any way and so not appropriate to cite on Wikipedia. I admit, however, that it's a fun alternative view of American accents with intriguing and probably well-intentioned research (though obviously a lot of original research). Wolfdog (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like it because the site has references and links to PDFs of ANAE. However, if we agree the site is not the best to use as a source, then so be it. Over and out.LakeKayak (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, LakeKayak. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 16:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hello

I'm from Massachusetts. Where are you from? XSAMPA (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey.LakeKayak (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you have the bother-father, cot-caught distinction, but pronounce the cloth set with the caught vowel?

Do you have distinguish Mary marry and merry? How about hurry and furry? Does happy have the eat vowel or the it vowel? XSAMPA (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I pronounce "Mary" and "marry" both as [meɪɹi] but "merry" as [mɛɹɪ].
• I distinguish the vowel in "hurry" and "furry."
• I pronounce "happy" as [hæpi].

LakeKayak (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ae-tensing

Yes, I would approve of such. Fish567 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish567: Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue?

Can you please cite what Wikipedia rule I'm breaking through my edit summaries? I'm not a "veteran Wikipedian" in all honesty. Like you suggested, I participated in the talk page discussion, and found no wide consensus in favor of removing Donald Trump from the list of New York accented speakers. I'm interested in linguistics like you are, I noticed he was removed after seeing him on there a few months ago. He'd been on the list of NYCE speakers for years prior to this, and I even provided two new sources confirming he's a NYCE speaker, citing linguists and college professors. I'm not sure how I acted out of turn, but I assure you I'm editing and contributing to Wikipedia in good faith.--Mrv3rsac3 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrv3rsacs3:I just thought the comment was a little rude and rather sassy. "Rudeness" does fall under the categorical incivility. (I looked it up myself.) However, if such was not intended, then you simply left a bad impression. In which case, I apologize for misunderstanding.LakeKayak (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakekayak:I didn't mean to get on anyone's nerves. The edit summary, sort of like a tweet, only gives you so many characters, so what is being said can unintentionally come across as rude and overly direct. However, I don't think talking, making insinuations concerning anyone getting banned on my talk page was the best way of dealing with the situation. I'm fine talking things out on the article's talk page.--Mrv3rsac3 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York City - popular stereotypes

Do you actually not believe that this is a popular stereotype (SNL's Kawffe Tawwk, Noo Yawk, etc.) or are you just afraid this will be removed without a citation? Wolfdog (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: There is a stereotype that New Yorkers pronounce "talk" as "tawwk" and "coffee" as "cawwfee" (although, from my experience, this depiction may be completely accurate). We can agree on that. However, I think the stereotype is the tensing (due to lack of better term) of the caught vowel, not that the caught vowel is kept distinct from the cot vowel. So, we may differ on what the stereotype is. It could be because where I live, there is no cot-caught merger, anyway. So I simply may have overlooked that part of the stereotype.LakeKayak (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(One-off talk page stalking) It must be mainly the quality (cot-caught distinction is perfectly normal in the US), though I fail to see how the double 'w' conveys the rather un-American (considering most other accents) closeness of /ɔː/. It doesn't even glide to the high back position (which is a Cockney pronunciation), but is either monophthongal or ends in a non-syllabic schwa. I think aw-uh would be a better choice, though it's still pretty bad, as it shows the vowel as a disyllabic sequence, which, AFAIK, it normally isn't. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: To answer your question, I think that the double 'w' actually represents the length. To my knowledge, the vowel is usually elongated in New York compared to other dialects. By the way, what do you mean by "AFAIK"?LakeKayak (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'As far as I know'. There seems to be some truth to what you're saying. Wells in his Accents of English (p. 513) writes the diphthongal variants [ɔ̝ːə, oːə, ʊːə], with length marks after the first element, though, as far as I can tell, he doesn't explicitly say that this vowel is longer than the General American equivalent. A Handbook of Varieties of English (2004) also doesn't seem to discuss the issue and writes the diphthongal variants in a more usual way ([oə, ʊə]). Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: It was my own perception and an educated guess on why the double 'w' is used in the eye dialect of "coffee" and "talk". Otherwise, I can explain why the double 'w' is used myself.LakeKayak (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB and LakeKayak: Actually, in my own opinion (or educated guess, as you say), being an American as well as growing up just outside NYC, I always felt the double "w" spelling is meant to highlight the intense rounding of the lips, which makes this /ɔː/ different from most other American variants of /ɔː/, which have little or no rounding whatsoever. I agree, however, the spelling "aw-uh" would be more accurate. However, it's not what Americans are used to and therefore not as immediately comprehensible for most Americans. Wolfdog (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: You're probably spot on. It's that and the fact that the vowels of the [o] type tend to naturally have more rounding than the more open vowels. Thanks. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: I think we can reach an agreement. I will reinstate the line of the stereotype but identifying the stereotype to be the tense /ɔː/. Finding supporting evidence shouldn't be a challenge.LakeKayak (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: I am sorry it took a while. My computer started to act up. However, the line of the stereotype (due to lack of better term) has now been reinstated.LakeKayak (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If it's the word "stereotype" that seems dicey, you can change it to something more neutral. Popular "notion", for example. Wolfdog (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on mid-Atlantic accent

We are currently having a discussion. I am trying to have a dicussion. Please refer to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Reb1981 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reb1981: I misunderstood your intentions.LakeKayak (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I been at this for a long time. If I am wrong. Then I am wrong, I am just going by what I was taught in regards to grammer. I am not perfect by far. That's why I would like to discuss it. I wish others would jump in to, but some articles are not watched as much as others. Reb1981 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could at least try.LakeKayak (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also sent a message to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard as well. Reb1981 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just contacted an editor who works on the page Capitalization in English. We now only need a response.LakeKayak (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Reb1981 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just for humor, I am use to saying. "I am sorry" because I am in online customer service field. It's habit. I didn't even realize I kept saying it. 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Reb1981: Someone may have gotten back to us on the page Talk:Mid-Atlantic accent.LakeKayak (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think more I look at it. Let's going ahead can capitalize it. Just make sure you do both. That may have been what threw me off, cause the mid-Atlantic was lower case too. Also, I included some links at top of talk page that may help in future, too. One you already know. Reb1981 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the templates.LakeKayak (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RP /ʊ/

See Received_Pronunciation#Historical_variation "The vowels /ʊ/ and /uː/ have undergone fronting and reduction in the amount of lip-rounding[90] (phonetically, this can be transcribed [ʊ̜̈] and [ʉ̜ː], respectively)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSAMPA (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XSAMPA:How about we discuss this on the talk page? The problem is that most other dialects page do not have a separate bullet point for the /ʊ/ vowel. So, unless this vowel in particular is non-traditional, it makes little sense to have a bullet point to inform the readers that it's traditional.LakeKayak (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[æ̈]

Neither the RP article nor the General American#Pure vowels use the symbol [æ̈] to transcribe /ʌ/. Both use either [ʌ], [ʌ̈] or [ɐ]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSAMPA (talk • contribs) 04:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XSAMPA: [æ̈] is actually an alternative way of transcribing [ɐ]. (See [ɐ](IPA)]] for details). They mean the exact same thing and I don't have a preference. Therefore, if you wish to use [ɐ] instead, go for it. However, the true vowel [ʌ] is produced far back in the mouth. And solely based off the vowel chart on the page, I don't think that the /ʌ/ is pronounced that far in the back of the mouth. Also, just so that we're clear, the true [ʌ] isn't used in General American or Received Pronunciation, either. The vowel used for the set /ʌ/ is actually [ɐ]. Therefore, at least, the chances are high that this is the vowel that Skinner chose for the Transatlantic /ʌ/.LakeKayak (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) they don't have to mean the same thing. In his description of Cockney, Wells uses [æ̈] for a vowel front of central (front-central, or 'near-front' as we call it on WP), phonetically distinct from central [ɐ]. It just depends on the transcriber. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: I only thought they were the same from ɐ (IPA). However, thanks for the clarity.LakeKayak (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. No problem. Just remember that diacritics in the IPA (as well as the symbols themselves) generally are not applied in a very rigid manner. Consider the vowel chart on the right and this blogpost by John Wells.

Treatment of pool words in Australian English

I've nominated this redirect for deletion. It just seems like a leftover from an old unsourced defunct article. Not something anyone is going to search for. Maybe you would like to participate in the discussion. Fish567 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish567: As I myself have very little knowledge on the topic, I will be unable to participate in the discussion. My opinion on the issue is simply too weak.LakeKayak (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANAE

Hi LakeKayak, I notice that you are putting the ANAE page numbers from the Aschmann site (which I think presents PDF drafts of chapters from the ANAE, not the actual ANAE as it is published). For example, in that version, "The Midland" section starts on page 262 (which is the page number you cited, understandaby), but in the published version of the ANAE, this section actually starts on page 263. Would you like me to send you the PDF of the ANAE through email? Wolfdog (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog:Only because it could be potentially dangerous, I'll have to say no.LakeKayak (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to upload the pdf to this talk page? That would remove the identity theft issue.LakeKayak (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to make that work. It sounds doubtful. If you can find another way, let me know. I feel bad for all your hard work but with potentially wrong page numbers. (What's the exact identity theft issue that concerns you?) Wolfdog (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: The real issue is that my e-mail address is under my real name. Giving my e-mail address would give away my identity on the internet, which I have been advised against.LakeKayak (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I invented a new email address just for the purpose of sharing documents with other Wikipedians. Wolfdog (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North American English regional phonology

LakeKayak, it would be in your best interest to stop editing North American English regional phonology for the next few days or until the dispute we're having is ended. Other editors have asked you to stop editing, and we should respect that while the dispute is being worked out. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: Okay.LakeKayak (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should apologize. I thought the debate was pretty much amongst ourselves and JordanAMSmith. However, I can see how I stepped out of line now.LakeKayak (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but others are continuing dispute, even after JordanAMSmith seemed to resolve the issue with us. No need to apologize to me. I just wanted to caution you. Wolfdog (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning.LakeKayak (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian raising

Hi LakeKayak, quick question. Do you doubt the assertion of about the joking American pronunciation "a boot"? If you don't, why do you think the statement requires a citation? --BDD (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Well, in all honesty, I think I have only seen it online. I am not too familiar with the stereotype. In which case, I do have some doubts and I would like to have verification.LakeKayak (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. It just seems so obvious to me, it hadn't occurred to me that not everyone would know it. I'm afraid to say I just made assumptions that you were being pedantic or something. I apologize. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept.LakeKayak (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional accents of English

You're quite right, of course. The article is about accents where English is a native language or or near-native second language. It's not about the antics of EFL users who are trying to emulate some form of English pronunciation. Thank you for your observation and edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (American and British English grammatical differences) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating American and British English grammatical differences, LakeKayak!

Wikipedia editor Reb1981 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great start on the article.

To reply, leave a comment on Reb1981's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Reb1981 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mid-Atlantic accent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liaison. 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) 10:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue fixed now. The link is now to Liaison (French).LakeKayak (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting consistency

Regarding this reversion of my edit, and your comment: I appreciate the principle "don't change formatting just because you don't like it", but consistency of formatting makes the page more readable, which is a principle behind much of the WP:MOS. I changed reference (which had only just been added in that form) to match the formatting of all the others on the page. (If your objection was to the change from a "harv..." template to "sfn...", that's another matter—I don't have a preference for one over the other, beyond appreciating the "sfn..." automatic merging of duplicates—but the formatting of the new reference doesn't match the previously existing ones. Nitpicking polish (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitpicking polish: As this boils down to a difference in code and both syntaxes produce the same output, I cannot see the argument. I have seen many Wikipedia pages that use both formats "harv" and "sfn" interchangeably.LakeKayak (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the actual displayed output. The form of the template I replaced produced output inconsistent with the rest of the reference section. I replaced it with a "sfn" form, because that's what's used elsewhere in the page, but the consistency I'm talking about is what the reader sees, not the templates in use. Nitpicking polish (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The output is not the same: sfn produces "Wells (1982), p. 153." and harv produces "Wells (1982:195)". LakeKayak I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67, to say "you are simply wrong" sounds like you're shouting which is not civil at all. However,@Nitpicking polish: I now see what you mean. I have replaced {{Harvcoltxt}} with {{Harvp}}, which 'does produce the same output. (I checked the preview this time.) I apologize for accusing you of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.LakeKayak (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phonological history of English high front vowels

Sorry if I came off unnecessarily as harsh when I used a rhetorical question in edit summary at Phonological history of English high front vowels. While I have no reason to doubt that you're doing it in WP:GOODFAITH to improve Wikipedia, when reverting, one needs to not just explain why the first thing was the way it used to be, but provide reason why it is better than the new one. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I forgive you.LakeKayak (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

Please read the introduction to the Manual of Style. It sets out the style to be followed unless there are good reasons to the contrary. It's not a matter of personal preferences – as it happens, I prefer "USA" to "US", but the MoS is clear on this point. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. And I feel that we need some justification for the policy. The only one I have thought of was that sometimes some people insist the name United States over United States of America or America. And this violates WP:NOTCENSORED.LakeKayak (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style issues don't violate WP:NOTCENSORED; they are not about information, merely setting out how it is presented. There are style choices I don't agree with (maximum de-capitalization is another), but there are many style choices I would make that others would disagree with. Styles are hard to justify because ultimately they are simply a matter of taste – and changing taste at that. What I do strongly support is consistency, and this is impossible without a style manual which editors follow, albeit not slavishly in exceptional cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on LakeKayak and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."

Opinion: Peter coxhead is absolutely correct in this instance. If you wish to challenge the guideline, the proper way to do it is to follow the procedures set out at the Policy policy (not a typo) and seek to change the guideline via discussion and/or a RFC at the policy talk page, not to just edit as you see fit because you don't see a justification for the policy or disagree with it. If, in a particular situation, you believe that the guideline causes a result that is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia, you can seek to establish a local exception, but that requires a showing that the specific facts in that unusual instance cause the guideline to produce a unwise result and also requires that you obtain consensus for the exception if anyone objects (as has happened here}. If you challenge the general application of the guideline, however, your only recourse is to seek to change the guideline at the guideline talk page. You can argue there that the current guideline is unjustified or was unwisely adopted, if you care to do so, but until you achieve such a change policies and guidelines are the established consensus of the community and should be followed. Peter coxhead is, let me just note in passing, also right that NOTCENSORED has absolutely nothing to do with this question.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I really should challenge the policy rather than what is display on the page. Peter coxhead, I am sorry I made a mistake.LakeKayak (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've had my run-ins with parts of the MoS in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Raising

What are you having such a hard time understanding? I understand my edits just fine. Were you taught to always revert the edits of IP addresses or something? I'm trying to figure this out. 2602:306:8B22:7C40:2DE0:2314:4173:6353 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is currently being discussed on the page Talk: Canadian raising and I told you my side already on the talk page for your other IP address.LakeKayak (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern American English

Hello. I am back. I've just read the Northern American English article, and was very surprised to see that it says that Southern Ontario is included, because Canadian English is very different than Northern American dialects, and even in places like Southern Ontario, as far as I know the dialect is very similar to Western American English, but very different from Northern American English. Is that really what the ANAE says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSAMPA (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LakeKayak. 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)[reply]