Welcome Libhye!

Hi I just saw your edit on the article kim jung-un, but I don't fully understand your editing reason. Could you please tell me so that I can improve my work in the future? Thanks :) (~~) AyustimGniyrc (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AyustimGniyrc: The point of writing ‘Korean pronunciation: [kim.dzʌŋ.ɯn] or [kim] [tsʌŋ.ɯn]’ is to show that the pronunciation of Jong Un in isolation is [tsʌŋ.ɯn]. However, people keep misunderstanding this notation, so I've replaced it with a footnote.

Hello, Libhye. 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]

Here's the HTML it generates when you do this:

<span xml:lang="ko-Hani" lang="ko-Hani">
    <span xml:lang="ko" lang="ko">
        <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97" class="extiw" title="wikt:漢字">漢字</a>
    </span>
</span>

The outer <span> is generated by the infobox; the inner one by your less specific {{lang}} (you can tell because you have only specified the language code, whereas the infobox specifies both language and script codes). What exactly is "not already handled by enclosing template"? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may refer to the code inside {{Infobox Chinese/Korean}} (which is called by {{Infobox Korean name}}:

|  data3  = {{#if: {{{hanja<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <span style="font-size:1rem;">{{lang|ko-Hani|{{{hanja}}} }}</span> }}

So as you can see, it already puts the "hanja" parameter inside the proper {{lang}} template automatically. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have recently noted you adding non-Uzbek names to the Uzbekistan-related articles and I do not fully understand it. Bukhara and Samarkand have NEVER been a part of Tajikistan. Russian has never been the official language of Uzbekistan, Uzbek SSR, as well as Russian Turkestan, and the Bukharan SSR. Please try to add Russian names to the article about Lviv and I would like to see how fast are you going to get reverted. Best, Lingveno (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is not always the best place to leave comments - the best is the talk page of the article you are concerned with - many computer systems and browsers cut the edit summary into smaller chunk - better the talk p[age - it will be easier to find as well JarrahTree 14:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While commenting in edit summaries is perfectly legitimate, I was actually just planning to leave a comment on the talk page. Libhye (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the legitimacy - just suggesting talk is better JarrahTree 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the second part of this edit-summary. I realized too late you were referring to {{IPA-hns}}. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek consensus before moving pages from stable titles like Municipality of Dobrovnik and Municipality of Hodoš. Moving pages from stable versions without consensus and when the move is clearly disputed is disruptive editing. You can seek advice for names of pages for Slovenian municipalities at WP:SLOVENIA. Doremo (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of disruptive editing leaves a lot to be desired. There is no default location for either of the two articles; all we have is one person's opinion that Dobrovnik and Hodoš should be used and another person's opinion that Dobronak and Hodos should be used, which is a 1–1 stalemate. Until one of us changes their mind or someone else joins in (but canvassing Slovene-biased editors would not be acceptable), there is no resolution. Libhye (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the part about canvassing. Libhye (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be going around Wikipedia reverting the edits of Maczkopeti without providing any explanations. Due to the rapid fire reversions, and the lack of explanations, this appears to be vandalism and stalking. I am asking you now to cease these reversions or you risk being blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 00:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Maczkopeti#Misunderstanding of MOS:LEADPRON. Basically, User:Maczkopeti is a long-term vandal that I have only now discovered. An enormous amount of his edits need to be reverted. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I've provided edit summaries for a lot of reverts, but it would be too much work to write a full edit summary every time I revert the vandal. Libhye (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no warnings, no blocks etc on Maczkopeti's page. They have never been blocked and I see no formal warnings or reports of the user. Stop reverting their edits without explanation. I see no evidence that they are a long term vandal as you claim. They may have made some edits that some dislike and find questionable, but blindly reverting without explanation is not the solution. And in what way is reverting and re-adding the pronunciations for common English words such as Sandwich, Kent and Ireland not in violation of MOS:LEADPRON? Two very well understood words in the English language with obvious pronunciations and extremely common English usage? So I say again. Do not continue to blindly revert this users edits without engaging in a discussion, and do not make reverts without an explanation or it is you who appears to be the vandal. Canterbury Tail talk 00:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things: First of all, I gave you a link to the ongoing discussion. Second, it actually is allowed to revert vandalism without an edit summary. While the common noun ‘sandwich’ needs no pronunciation, the place names ‘Sandwich’ do: the one in the United Kingdom is pronounced ‘Sandwidge’ while the one in the United States is pronounced ‘Sandwitch’. I suppose the time has come to report User:Maczkopeti. Libhye (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly two people posting a grand total of two posts without any other people involved, including the person you're accusing, is not a discussion. Yes it's a good start, but it's not a discussion with any conclusions. As for Sandwich, both of those are standard pronunciations of a common English word, both of which are used in the UK and in the US. And yes you're allowed to revert vandalism without a summary, but you've yet to establish that the editor is vandalising you really only have edits you disagree with at this point. Plus you have a considerable history of not using edit summaries despite being asked to do so. They appear to be good faith edits as far as I can see and you jumping straight to the vandalism label is not assuming good faith. Oh and I'm not attacking you, I'm querying your edits.

Now I see you've stopped the straight reverts and are discussing the matter more, that is great and all we're looking for. I'm just looking to avoid disruption to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the Sandwich thing first. While it's true that ‘sandwich’ is a common word, ‘Sandwich’ is not; you don't seem to understand the difference. It's clearly important information that the locals of Sandwich, England, pronounce it ‘Sandwidge’ and the locals of Sandwich, Massachusetts, pronounce it ‘Sandwitch’, and while one might disagree about how, and where in the article, that information should be included, it's not acceptable to remove it completely. Including the local pronunciation of a place name is standard Wikipedia practice, particularly when said place name is pronounced differently elsewhere.

The easiest way to tell that Maczkopeti's edits are in bad faith, is his favourite edit summary, ‘Removed pronunciation per MOS:LEADPRON’. With some exceptions, edits hidden behind this edit summary are in fact not warranted by MOS:LEADPRON; in fact, MOS:LEADPRON says to include the very pronunciations he's removing. With some exceptions, he's been removing pronunciations in violation of the letter and spirit of MOS:LEADPRON (while mendaciously claiming it's due to MOS:LEADPRON), and he has done so at hundreds and hundreds of articles, without any prior consensus, and despite being reverted when doing so by a wide variety of editors (not to mention the countless editors whose valuable work he's deleting all over the project). As I say in my favourite edit summary: ‘What MOS:LEADPRON actually says is: ‘If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation [...]’’ Yet it's precisely this kind of pronunciation Maczkopeti has been removing all over Wikipedia. What he has done is effectively revert hundreds of editors in violation of long-standing Wikipedia-wide consensus that pronunciations that are not apparent from the spelling are not to be summarily removed, while blatantly lying about his reason for doing so.

It's true that I often don't write edit summaries, a practice which is perfectly legitimate (and would be legitimate even I had been asked to provide them, which I haven't before you). Writing an edit summary is a waste of valuable time when there's no need for it. The main point of writing an edit summary when you revert someone, is to make the reverted editor understand why you're reverting them, and I'm absolutely certain the sixty-six edit summaries I did provide are more than enough to get my message across to Maczkopeti.

You're looking to avoid disruption to the project? Good. Then I suggest you start by trying to put an end to the endless havoc wrought by Maczkopeti and other disruptive editors. Libhye (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with you on the Sandwich thing. It's pronounced the same way as sandwich (the capital S makes no difference) and both pronunciations are common in English and indeed even in and around Sandwich, Kent.

MOS:LEADPRON states specifically pronunciation is not to be used for common English language words, of which Sandwich is. Not to be used for foreign countries whose pronunciation is common in English such as (Ireland). And I do find your interpretation of what is a common English word odd, such as Graham, Clarke, Put, Campbell etc. Just because a non-English speaker may not find them intuitive the shouldn't be given pronunciations when generally used. Sure put a pronunciation in a specific article on that word or name, but not for every usage of such common words on Wikipedia.

Oh and I owe you an apology on the edit summaries item, I say the header on your talk page but didn't read it clearly. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be unnecessary to point out that ‘common English words’ do not include surnames. You also have to read all of MOS:LEADPRON in context; it also says: ‘If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name.’ ‘Graham’ has different pronunciations depending on the Graham in question, and ‘Campbell’ can only be pronounced by people who are familiar with this particular name. I think it's safe to say that your ‘interpretation’ – I'll be polite and use that word – of MOS:LEADPRON is completely at odds both with the consensus that led to its formulation, and with general and long-standing consensus on Wikipedia. As I pointed out above, Maczkopeti has undone hundreds of editors, indicative of a wide consensus against his and your views.

I'll explain ‘put’ and ‘Ireland’ later if necessary, but I'll prioritise getting you to understand the Sandwich issue: Yes, ‘MOS:LEADPRON states specifically pronunciation is not to be used for common English language words’, but while ‘sandwich’ is one, ‘Sandwich’ isn't one. The fact that ‘Sandwich’ has the same range of pronunciations as ‘sandwich’ isn't relevant to anything. Many readers of the article about Sandwich, Massachusetts, will want to know how that's pronounced locally, and knowing the range of pronunciations of ‘Sandwich’ and ‘sandwich’ doesn't help them in the slightest. That ‘sandwich’ (not ‘Sandwich’) is a common word does not in any way mean that it's OK to remove information about how ‘Sandwich’ is pronounced locally in the different locations by this name. If it's not actually true that ‘Sandwidge’ is the local pronunciation of Sandwich, Kent, that's another issue altogether, which is only acceptably solved by noting what is. Libhye (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly am I supposed to do when my opponent refuses to engage with my arguments on the talk page? If I don't revert him, nothing happens except he wins. Neither of us had broken the three-revert rule, and repeated reverting is straight-out necessary when it's the only means available to force someone to the talk page. Libhye (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the steps in WP:DR. Ask for a 3rd opinion. Ask for more people to participate in the talk page discussion at WP:RUSSIA or WP:LITERATURE or some other Wikiproject. There are many options available to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you make any further edits about the pronunciation or the Russian spelling of Tolstoy's first name unless your change has first received consensus on the talk page. It looks like the 'Lyof' pronunciation is being mentioned in a footnote on the Russian Wikipedia, and it's possible that such a solution would find support here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libhye. 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]

Hi! Why did you revert my edit? a ) was missing. --Helmoony (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look again; it's not missing. Libhye (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2019 (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:Libhye reported by User:Jayjg (Result: ). Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring across multiple articles and subscribe instead to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you continue to edit war, even if it falls below the threshold of the 3 revert rule, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. El_C 20:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Names of the days of the week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Names of the days of the week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mondial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your agenda of adding Braille versions of text to random articles. It hel[ps no-one, and me and two other blind people I'm talking to both hate it. If you continue, you'll be blocked. Graham87 05:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I addressed this on your talk page. The choice of articles is anything but random, and the point is not to help Braille readers but to impart on sighted readers the importance of Braille to the subject of the article. As fellow blind people, you three should understand better than most the importance of increasing the visibility of Braille. The Braille in these articles is as relevant to the subject as any other script in any other article. The Braille article has had simulated Braille in it forever, as has the Braille template. Libhye (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a neutral point of view violation and should not be forced on Wikipedia. There's no such thing as a visual screen reader. In mainland Europe many blind people use Braille displays, but in English-speaking countries and probably other parts of the world, they often just use speech synthesisers that may or may not support the Braille unicode (some Braille displays wouldn't, either). Graham87 05:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of any policy. Adding relevant scripts is the norm on Wikipedia. I meant that browsers used by sighted people show the simulated Braille. The fact that screen readers or Braille devices or anything may not support this or that is never a valid reason to remove something. It's particularly ridiculous to want to remove (simulated) Braille as a service to blind people. Can't imagine most blind people would agree with that. Libhye (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it kinda is relevant what screen readers/Braille devices support when we're talking about Braille script. As I have said I have spoken to two other blind people about this and their reaction was a general groan. Not a single person has even suggested this in the last twenty years of Wikipedia's existence, so your suggestion is highly eccentric. Please get consensus first before implementing it. Graham87 05:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is extremely long-standing consensus on Wikipedia to include all relevant scripts in all relevant articles. There is no way you could ever hope to change that consensus to make an exception for the Braille script. You don't seem to understand that your edits are against consensus. As I mentioned, it was not my idea to add simbraille to the Braille article or the Braille template; it's always been there. It's a pity it's taken so long for Braille to be added to other relevant articles, but the fact remains that Wikipedia adds relevant scripts to relevant articles, and that it's never been relevant whether screen readers or Braille devices can read a script in order to add it. Three people can't just decide to change the way it's always been. I'll reinstate the Braille and trust you not to abuse your admin powers. Libhye (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's actually not necessarily true that there's consensus to include all scripts all the time. If you reinstate any Braille script, I'll take you to the admin's incidents noticeboard. Graham87 06:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason a consensus to remove Indic scripts was necessary was precisely that the overarching rule is to include all relevant scripts. A similar consensus to remove Braille (which has always been used, just not as widely) would be needed to remove the Braille script from Braille-relevant articles. In particular, there is long-standing consensus on the Braille article to include the Braille for "braille". Your threat already constitutes an abuse of admin power. You do not get to go against consensus just because you feel like it. Libhye (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libhye asked me to comment here. I'm not blind, and my ignorance may be apparent, but here's my 2c. For page-watchers, we appear to be talking about repeating, in braille, the bolded headword in the lead of an article, such the name of a person or school, much as we would present Tbilisi first in Latin script and then repeat it in Georgian.

Braille is an odd script in many ways. In how it's learned and used, it acts as an independent script, and English braille has its own orthography. But conceptually it's a code for the Latin script, not unlike Morse code or semaphore. Also, most scripts are associated with a particular language or ethnicity, which braille is not. Adding braille to the lead thus strikes me as more akin to adding IPA to the lead than to adding Telugu or Georgian.

Furthermore, braille readers do not in general support Unicode. I don't understand that myself, it seems crazy to me, but a least a few years ago, Unicode braille would generate gibberish. From Graham87's comments, it would seem that's still the case.

Libhye, you said that the point of adding braille was "to impart on sighted readers the importance of Braille." But that's not the purpose of adding non-Latin scripts to the lead of an article. Rather, they're added to help the reader identify the topic, and to search for other references. Chinese names in pinyin, for example, may be ambiguous, but adding the Chinese characters make it much more likely that the person, institution, city etc. will be identifiable (though of course not always). And because the reader can copy it and paste it in a search engine, providing it is a valuable service to the reader. Similarly with Arabic script, which is often sloppily transliterated into Latin script, to the point where you often can't tell how the name is pronounced. Adding Arabic script solves that problem, in addition to helping the reader search for more info. But adding braille to the lead doesn't provide either of these advantages. At least, I doubt that individuals or institutions that are ambiguous in Latin script will be clarified if written in braille, and plugging braille into a search engine isn't likely to accomplish anything. So I don't see how adding it helps sighted readers in any way.

It would be different if blind readers wanted braille added, as a point of pride or for recognition, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If it doesn't serve any purpose for sighted readers, and blind readers just find it annoying, then I don't see any point in including it. At best, per WP:BOLD, if your additions are reverted, you should take them to talk; in this case, best at some central location, since this isn't about individual articles but a proposed convention that would impact the WP:MOS. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict with the comment on Indian scripts: Actually, Indian scripts were forbidden precisely because editors were adding them "to impart on readers the importance" of that script/culture/ethnicity. They became a tool of nationalism, with screams of 'genocide' if every place name in India wasn't repeated in 20 different scripts, clogging up the lead until our Indian articles became running jokes. I find it unfortunate that Indian place names are no longer presented in the scripts of the primary languages spoken there, that authors' names aren't presented in the script of the language they wrote in, etc., but all the nationalists clamoring for attention won't allow it. So now if I want a place or personal name in Telugu, I need to click on the link to Telugu Wikipedia, assuming there even is one. What a pain. But if I want a name in braille, I can pop it into a braille converter. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Indeed. The situation with Braille unicode being supported by screen readers has improved a bit since my 2014 comment]. Most modern screen readers support it by default now, but it's easy enough to wind up in a situation where Braille unicode is unreadable (e.g. by using a different speech synthesiser from the regular one, which many blind people do on NVDA, for example), that I'm not at all comfortable assuming that blind people can read Braille unicode symbols all the time. There's also the matter that they take a long time to say ... "Dots 1-2 dots 1-2-3-5 dot1 dot 2-4 dots 1-2-3 ...", so I'd only really appreciate Braille unicode when I'm expecting it. It's quite common for blind people to spend much of their lives without using Braille, as text-to-speech solutions are so convenient these days, so adding the script doesn't really serve an advocacy purpose either.

As for the addition of Braille script in the Braille article, it was tried in this series of edits, and then stuck in this one, both by IP editors in December 2019 ... I don't think that's really strong consensus.

I apologise for my block threat up above; that was uncalled for. Graham87 07:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Libhye, I would very strongly appreciate it if you removed the Braille script you added to the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia or anywhere else you added it. While I imagine there'd be a small minority of blind users/Braille advocates who would appreciate it for the reasons you've mentioned, for most of us it'd be annoying or even counterproductive. Graham87 07:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's of interest how 'braille' is written/abbreviated in English and French Braille. But IMO that doesn't need to be in the lead of the braille article. Should at least be in the English and French Braille articles, though. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's crazy that braille readers will read running braille script as "dots 1-2 dots 1-2-3 ..." rather than just reading it as words. That's like reading Latin script as "letter T, letter H, letter E ...". — kwami (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to take a slight middle ground here. I was the original programmer of the {{braille cell}} template back in 2012 for the purpose of documenting articles about Braille systems. It always had the capacity for adding strings of Braille for illustrating examples, but it was never intended for adding braille as a "native script" in article ledes, and I don't think that's appropriate the vast majority of the time. That having been said, I firmly believe that using Braille as a subheader/alternative name for individuals and technologies closely associated with the development and promulgation of Braille can be both appropriate and useful. Having the infobox at Sabriye Tenberken show her name in Braille would actually assist in orienting individuals that they had found the correct article just as much if not moreso than her picture. It is much the same argument for why it was included in the header of template:Braille. If there are articles on Braille publications, I would actually soften my stance on the "native script", precisely because that is the original script that the publication was made in. But without that demonstrable and verifiable underlying fact - that the standard English orthography version is undeniably a translation from the original, infoboxes are the only appropriate place for a full Braille rendition of an otherwise non-tactile name. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 07:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, yeah in infoboxs and headers it's alright, but as you say only in very exceptional circumstances where Braille is very closely relevant to the article subject. I can see it causing friction though; in the case of Tenberken and indeed Louis Braille, the correct way to write their names in the form of Braille native to them would've been to use dots 4-6 as the capital letter sign, whereas in English Braille the appropriate sign is dot 6. Graham87 08:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see that as a problem. We often render names in Latin script with letters that don't occur in English, or with digraphs that have different values than in English. That's simply because they're not in English. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And even though Kwami and I have often butted heads in regards to Braille content - between the two of us we've probably contributed and fought over more than half the Braille content on en.wikipedia - I find myself in total agreement that just like the Czech Republic's name is written using Czech's native Latin orthography, Louis Braille's would be in his native French Braille orthography. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 21:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pellinki, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Finnish and Swedish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2022 (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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]