User talk:Eklir

A tag has been placed on Albrecht Goetze requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been expanded in the meantime. Thanks. Eklir (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited or reverted a number of vandalisms by the anonymous user 68.81.125.26 for resorting to unmotivated deleting and hostile counter-claims in creolistics and John McWhorter. His IP might have to be blocked. Eklir (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Awarded for sourcing efforts at articles related to Creole languages, especially Creole language. Keep it up!

I see you are the one who originally placed the information concerning English on the Relexification article [1]. However, over on the discussion at Talk:Maltese language, a user invented his own definition of what relexification was, removing what you wrote (in order to fit his argument about what "relexification" was over at the Maltese language discussion), at which point I told him that he was "not able to simply start altering definitions of linguistic processes to fit your [his] incorrect argument," and in response, I was told that since he has "a PhD in linguistics and specialize in historical linguistics", "I AM [he IS] qualified to make such edits". I hope you will be able to help me deal with this user, since not only is he exhibiting sheer arrogance in claiming he has the right to do this, but is vastly incorrect, and seems persistent in his views. Cheers. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been tranferred to the relevant talk page, here. Thank you. Eklir (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion has been moved to the appropriate talk page of the offending contributor. Thank you. Eklir (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been tranferred to the relevant talk page. Please leave your comments here. Thank you. Eklir (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is a new message! Doncsecz 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eklir. You have new messages at Doncsecz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. I have opened a section on your actions on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Eklir page. I hope the community can give some insights on the strong disagreement between us. Thank you for your suggestion. --grin ✎ 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Eklir (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been tranferred to the relevant talk page. Please leave your comments here. There is also an ongoing debate on related wikiquette issues here where you are invited to contribute. Thank you. Eklir (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Paleo-Balkan languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dacian (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) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Dacian has been changed to Dacian language. Eklir (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eklir, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on David Ede, appears to be directly copied from http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2008/09/036.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on David Ede if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eklir (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Ede, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamicist (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) 10:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eklir (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narreme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constituent (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) 11:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eklir (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pouvez-vous enregistrer la prononciation du mot caisse avec un accent québécois SVP ? Fête (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le mot 'caisse' a la même voyelle que 'reine' et 'fête'. Je peux l'enregistrer pour vous si vous voulez. Eklir (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eklir (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that you are right about Eifeler Regel - it looks much better now.Jamesx12345 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but things could be improved (more sections, a more complete bibliography, for example). Best, Eklir (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eifeler Regel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alemannic (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.

Done. Eklir (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eklir, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Robert Chaudenson, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Robert Chaudenso. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Robert Chaudenson at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By mistake, I created two identical articles, Robert Chaudenso and Robert Chaudenson, the latter one only having the correct spelling of the name Chaudenson. Eklir (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on français québécois has been transferred to the appropriate user talk page on French Wikipedia. Thanks. Eklir (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encore une erreur, il faut écrire "al'a ou à (prononcé [a] ou [aː])" au lieu de "al'a ou à (prononcé [a]) ou [a:])". 198.105.110.78 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. Veuillez m'avertir à l'avenir sur ma page sur fr.wikipedia. Eklir (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a une erreur dans l'article fr:Français montréalais, il faut écrire /v, z, ʒ, v(r)/ au lieu de /v, z, ʒ, , v(r)/ . Il ne faut pas mettre deux virgules. 198.105.108.79 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. Eklir (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a une erreur dans l'article Prononciation du français québécois, on n'écrit pas "dans des contextes", on écrit "dans les conxtextes". 198.105.127.84 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Règle: les dans les contextes exhaustifs, des quand l'énumération n'est pas exhaustive. Je vérifierai ce qui est applicable. Merci. Eklir (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quelqu'un a annulé ma modification dans l'article Prononciation du français québécois. 198.105.101.45 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voir ma réponse ici. Vous pouvez continuer à m'écrire ici quand c'est nécessaire. Merci. Eklir (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vous avez prononcé [kɛːs] ou [kaɛ̯s]

dans cette audio ? 198.105.101.45 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probablement [kaɛ̯s], le contraire m'étonnerait. Eklir (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dans l'article prononciation du français québécois, il faut plutôt écrire [waɛ̯] au lieu de [waɛ:]. 198.105.101.45 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non, [waɛ̯], pas [waɛ̯:], il n'y a pas d'allongement. 198.105.106.246 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci, mais c'est effectivement [waɛ̯:] avec allongement, et non pas [waɛ̯]. Eklir (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a une faute d'orthographe dans l'article Bon Samaritain#Les interprétations, il faut écrire péché au lieu de pêché. 198.105.106.246 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y a-t-il des erreurs dans l'article Quebec French phonology ? 198.105.106.246 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Je vérifierai. Eklir (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qui peut enregistrer des prononciations québécoises ? 198.105.106.246 (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tout est là: http://www.phonetique.ulaval.ca/exerque.html

Qui peut enregistrer des prononciations québécoises dans Wikimedia Commons ? 198.105.106.246 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne sais pas. Eklir (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peut-être que vous pouver l'enregistrer. 198.105.106.246 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L'acrolecte est la variété standard ? 198.105.106.246 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dans la page Wikipedia:Requested recordings, il n'y a personne qui répond. 198.105.101.111 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Je n'ai pas le temps pour ça, donc je ne ferai pas d'enregistrement. Quand à la variété acrolectale du français québécois, c'est la variété la moins utilisée dans la vraie vie. Merci. Eklir (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mais la diphtongaison est plus utilisé dans la vraie vie. 198.105.114.15 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exact. Eklir (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les Gaspésiens ne font pas la diphtongaison ? 198.105.114.15 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Êtes-vous née à Montréal ? 198.105.102.214 (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dans l'article français québécois, il ne faut pas indiquer la distinction de /ø/ et /œ/, il faut indiquer la distinction de /ø/ et /œ/, parce que la distinction de /ø/ et /œ/ est vivante en français de France aussi. 198.105.115.38 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ll y a une erreur dans l'article Baie d'Hudson, on ne peut pas écrire /be d͡z‿ʏdsõ/, on doit écrire [be d͡z‿ʏdsõ]. 198.105.120.22 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, c'est une transcription qui se veut phonétique, pas phonologique. Tu peux y aller. Merci. Eklir (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a une erreur sur l'article Francitan. Il n'y a pas de c dans le mot steak. 198.105.126.220 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pourquoi j'entends une voix féminine dans cet enregistrement ? Vous êtes une femme ? 166.48.189.125 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Methuselah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumeria. 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) 09:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to why the edits could not simply be reverted.. I am not an admin, so I can't move pages back. :-) Ogress _smash! 20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O my, you missed the other pages: Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian languages, Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, uh Central–Eastern Malayo-Polynesian languages, there are others but they've disappeared from his edits page. Basically, if it's "Nusantaran" and about language, it's been moved. Ogress _smash! 20:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central–Eastern Nusantaran languages should be Eastern Malayo-Polynesian languages Ogress _smash! 23:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Functional item, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agreement. 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) 09:15, 10 December 2014 (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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eklir. 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)[reply]

Hello, Eklir. 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]

Hello, Eklir. 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)[reply]

On Hittite Laws & Code of the Nesilim you posted a merge request to the main page rather than the talk page. Please ensure you are editing the correct page before submitting and edit Tristanjlroberts (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eklir reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ). Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eklir. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Novalis69 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novalis69. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]