David Marjanović

Hi, David. Just letting you know I've made a rather large comment on the talk page at Dene-Caucasian languages that you'll probably want to give your opinions on. Take care, --Miskwito 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thanks. I'll have a look at it as soon (ha!) as possible. David Marjanović 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (that's 3:18 CEST…)Reply

Hey, I'm sorry if I created inaccuracies in my revision of the table. I first removed the orthography from the table because it was cumbersome and awkward. Then I realized that the website(s) that portrayed the writing system gave different information than the article was giving so I removed the writing system information altogether. I suppose this was the lazy way to fix the problem but that's what I did. I'm certainly not opposed to showing that the language has an orthography but it's better to do it in a separate table somehow. Other than the deletion of the orthographic information, my edits were simply a reorganization of the information already on the page so there's no need to source it. I did remove the tie bars because they don't show up right on IE 6 but you are technically right. I'll have to research what you say about the font-family specification. The table doesn't look too different with it but I was under the impression that IE 7 had better unicode enforcement than IE 6. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

When the font family or the IPA template are specified, IE 6 displays the tie bars correctly. IE 7, like most browsers these days, doesn't need this -- if a character isn't present in the specified font, it takes it from another font. The downside is that it does this even within the IPA template; if Arial Unicode MS isn't specified, it doesn't use it.

The differences between the orthographies website and the table I made are that my table is more precise (phonetically) and doesn't call the epiglottals "pharyngeals". I also don't see why explaining the orthography in a separate table would be an advantage because that table would have to contain the consonant table anyway. You are of course right that the three orthographies make the table cumbersome, but I think I'll put it back. Any objections?

Sorry for having attributed other edits to you. David Marjanović 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think I get what you're saying about IE7. The characters show up adequately, but unless you force the font for all of a given text, it will only use the IPA-ready fonts for the special characters. I have noticed that. That's part of the reason why I'm not looking forward to eventually switching to that browser. As for tie bars, they show up on IE6 but they aren't aligned the same as other browsers. For example, the tie bar for /t͡s/ shows up before the t. To display it correctly on IE 6 it would need to be like this /ts͡/ but that wouldn't look right on other browsers.

I think we should consider alternate ways of presenting the orthographies. It's not too weird to make a second table that is identical other than that it uses the language's orthography rather than the IPA, but I was actually thinking something more like this:

It could be in alphabetical order or in some other sort of order. I recall that another problem with the orthography as it was on the table was that it was not indicated which orthographies were being represented and there was (and is) no discussion of the orthographies in the article. We shouldn't use the table as a crutch for actual article prose. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK.

Still, we could reserve a table like the above for those sounds that are spelled differently in 2 or 3 of the orthographies, and include the others in the phoneme table – once instead of three times. That way we'd avoid the cluttering. What do you think?

I've also found another page that explains Haida phonology and all orthographies that have ever been used (if only by a linguist or two). I'll have to work that in. Notably, the vowels are included. David Marjanović 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to mention that the misplacement of the tie bars is a well-known bug in Arial Unicode MS. There's nothing we can do about it. David Marjanović 21:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... I'm not sure how much benefit we'd have in splitting up the orthographic aspect into two different tables. If somebody only cared about the letters of Haida they'd have to look at both unless they knew which sounds were represented orthographically in different ways and which ones had the same letter for all three. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

How are people who can't see it to tell you about it if they don't know of its existance? Also, your comment on Talk:WordGirl, though undeniably hilarious was not constructive. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm bossing you around, especially considering the staus of my registration. I'm just trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.32.202 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

First sentence: it's a (not terribly original) joke; also, I didn't create that userbox, I just find it funny, so I inserted it here. Second sentence: Oops, sorry, I somehow forgot the citation. (Such rich vocabulary is not my own.) I'll supply it ASAP. David Marjanović 14:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear David,

You made the following comment on Pinyin news:

[i]Is ["new" is closer to nǚ"] for a native English speaker? I have the ü sound in my native German and wouldn’t dream of considering that similar.[/i]

Basically, yes. Since English does not have this vowel, without training one normally tries to pronounce it as IPA "u," perhaps with some nasalization. It takes a while to get used to having the tongue in the /i/ position but the lips in the /u/ position. Hence the confusion. Jason 20:44, 17 December 2007 (Taiwan Time)

OK, thanks. I must have been extrapolating from the fact that speakers of many other languages without this vowel tend to substitute [i] instead. David Marjanović (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I was wondering, with your background in palaeontology, if you could help review several lepospondyl reconstructions that are currently at WikiProject Palaeontology's Paleoart review for accuracy before they are uploaded. I would appreciate it if you could give some input on the Paleoart review page. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't check back in time. Without looking at them, I bet that no better reconstructions are available anyway, so it's probably a rather moot point... David Marjanović (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

An editor is questioning notability as well as altering presentation in ways I feel are unhelpful. Would appreciate your input at Talk:Borean languages. --JWB (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Wikipedia is such a timesink that I stay away for years at a time. David Marjanović (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indo-Iranian languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hittite (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) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. David Marjanović (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edits at Talk:The Day the Earth Stood Still. Talk pages are meant for discussion on article improvement and what you posted makes no sense. If your account has been compromised you've got problems. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

...What? Nothing's wrong with my account, why?

The article states that there's an easter egg that comes up when you type "about:robots" into the address bar in Firefox. It probably was true once, but isn't now; the article should be updated to reflect that. David Marjanović (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, David. Not sure how to find your e-mail address, so I'm attempting to reach you here. You posted a kind remark on Pharyngula about my "Kudzu and the California Marriage Amendment" essay to the effect of "Bookmarked and highly recommended, even though a few of the embryological details are off." If you have time and interest, I would love to hear what's off so I can fix it. I make no apologies for being an amateur playing in other people's fields, but I do try to get it right. -- Rick Moen, rick@linuxmafia.com

Oh! Thank you! The one thing I remember noticing was about Müller's and Wolff's ducts: neither of them develops into ovaries or testes, those form separately and earlier.

Google Scholar knows my e-mail address.

David Marjanović (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's a big idea that most people aren't familiar with, and it's a little confusing, so I explained it at some length. Could you take a look at the lead and fix my work where it needs it? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to take a look at it soon. David Marjanović (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

why do all these articles for skull bones pretend that only humans have them? Good question. It may please you to know this and many other small articles are celebrating their hundreth birthday this year. The reason these smaller articles (in particular) only mention human content is because most of the original content is derived from Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy (1918) --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Xus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 14#Xus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proto-Dené–Caucasian language, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Dené–Caucasian language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply