Роман Сергеевич Сидоров

Articulatory settings

Articulatory settings: Hi, Wikipedia prefers it if you don't use people's Talk pages for individual discussions. I suggest you first read the Wikipedia article Basis of articulation, which covers articulatory settings. Then you might like to visit the item in my Blog from March 2016 (you can find the blog at www.peterroach.net and the list of archived blog posts is printed on the right side of the screen). You will see that you can leave comments at the end of that blog post, as several people have done. That would be a good place to ask questions or make comments. Best wishes, RoachPeter (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! But I do not have an opportunity to open the above web-site. I do not know why, but it is banned by my browsers. Could you answer here? Федор Амфитеатров (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe try https://www.peterroach.net/ RoachPeter (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just tried. Unfortunately, it has been banned. Федор Амфитеатров (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir! I am about to study phonetics. After having studied phonetics, I am going to edit articles which treat of phonetics. You know me not to be able to edit them without having studied the subject. But there are not books which treat of reading spectrograms. Could you help me? Is your Practical Course (English Phonetics and Phonology) intended for a novice?Федор Амфитеатров (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a good idea to study phonetics. But editing Wikipedia is not something for beginners. The people who edit the phonetics articles in Wikipedia are mostly people like me who have worked in the subject for many years and have a lot of experience. But there are many other things you could plan to do when you have completed your study of phonetics: write teaching material to help language learners with their pronunciation, or analyze and describe different languages or dialects. My 'English Phonetics and Phonology' is for beginners, and I have also written a small introductory textbook called 'Phonetics' for Oxford University Press. Reading spectrograms is a special area of phonetics, and many people find it very difficult. I do not know of a book which can teach you everything about it, but Peter Ladefoged's book 'A Course in Phonetics', Chapter 8, is a good introduction. You would also need to learn how to make spectrograms on your computer. RoachPeter (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! But is it possible to read spectrograms? Is it possible to read them correctly? You have written that reading appears to be difficult. So far as I understand, it is diffult for its complexity. Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sir! I think that is not true because my instructor tells me that the following opinion would be conventional, bit I do not understand why there is no consensus in the above-mentioned article, because the point of view, contrary to Honikman-Messum, is not reflected here, but this approach is a real fact.
• Sir, I am not a partisan for my knowledge of phonetics is exceedingly defective, that's why I do not understand your genuine intention. In brief, I do not understand why the material in the above-mentioned article is so scanty that this scantiness appers to be an impediment. Your humble servant,Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  If you want something in an article to be changed, you should bring it up on the article's talk page, not on the user talk pages of those who edited it recently. Posting the same message on multiple pages leads to decentralized discussion and is not constructive. Nardog (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, sir.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've just read your message on my talk page. I started to reply

  What opinion of mine are you referring to, when did I discuss it, and where did you see it? I do not recall doing so, although it is quite possible that I have simply forgotten.

Having seen this section on your talk page, I feel no need to follow up further. So my reply to you is not До свидания but Прощай. --Thnidu (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Private messages

You must stop using Wikipedia as a way of contacting individual people with your personal issues. You should use email or Messenger if you want to make personal contacts. I will not reply to any future message from you.

I have already explained that learning acoustic phonetics and using computers for acoustic analysis is useful but very difficult. I would say it is impossible unless you follow a course on the subject with a competent teacher.

You are using the wrong English words for your questions. "Self-control" means something completely different from what you are talking about. The subject to look for is "feedback". If you use Google to search for information about visual feedback in pronunciation learning and teaching you will find links to sites such as this one: https://core.ac.uk/display/85390718 RoachPeter (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thak you, sir! Your website is blocked in my region; I have written a letter to you, but there is no answer. I am very sorry to say but there is no competent teachers in my country. Moreover, this opportunity is not accessible for me. Say rather, my life is phonetics, and I am going to c a s, because of the above impossibility. Thank you, sir.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You are quite right, sir! Phonetics is transcendent for me, therefore the best way would be c s because there is no competent teacher in my region. Excuse me,sir.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at User talk:Wolfdog. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. For questions not related to improving the encyclopedia, visit Wikipedia:Reference desk. Nardog (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sir! I am a reader, and I do no understand why the article on RP is incoplete, that's why I have just written a message to the above-mentioned user. Therefore I reckon your critique of my messaging is incorrect.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The non-rhoticity of RP in the article Received Pronunciation is cited to Wells (1982: 76), which provides verification. And I'm sure you can find discussions of RP and how it's non-rhotic in Collins & Mees (2013), Cruttenden (2014), Jones (2011), Ladefoged (2004), Roach (2004), Upton (2004), and Wells (2008), to name a few listed in Received Pronunciation § Bibliography. It's not incomplete at all. Nardog (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! But I do not understand why you are talking about discussions. You have provided the proof of the so-called non-rhoticity but why are talking about discussion. If non-rhoticity is ceratain, I believe there is no need in discussion. If there is a debate, why you are calling the article incomplete? Being a foreign reader of EnWiki, sometimes I can misconstrue what has been written by the native speakers. So far as I understand, discussion means debate on the topic. If I am right. correct, please.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My question to Mr Wolfdog treats of improving the article just because I am used to search information here, that's why I am interested in improving the articles concerning English Phonetics and phonology. If you want to help me, please, indicate the page where Mr Ladefoged is talking about non rhoticity. You have provided the one of above-mentioned sources. That's wonderful but you have not indicated the pages in Roach, Upton and etc. I want you to give me the websites where they are talking about the above problem.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

discussion means debate Not necessarily. The way I used it is synonymous with "description" or "explanation". The next time you encounter an English word and you are not sure what it means in the context, I suggest you look it up either in a bilingual (i.e. English–Russian) dictionary of your choice or in a monolingual dictionary targeted for learners of English such as the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary[1] or the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English[2].

That's a lot to ask for a rando on the internet like me, don't you think? I'm sure if you pick up any of the books I mentioned you can easily locate the relevant part by looking at the book's index or the table of contents. Also Roach (2004) is available for free online and is only six pages long. Upton (2004) also is only 14 pages long. If you really want to educate yourself on the topic and make positive contributions to the encyclopedia as you say, these tasks shouldn't be daunting for you. Nardog (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Phonetics qualifications

I would be interested to know when you gained your IPA Certificate of Proficiency in the Phonetics of English and your Bachelor's degree in Phonetics, as displayed on your home page. RoachPeter (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are talking about.Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: levofloxacin

Hello. I am sorry, but I do not have any specific knowledge of medicine. If you check the page history of Levofloxacin, you can see that my only contribution is this one, i.e. the addition of a missing space. Please, use Talk:Levofloxacin if you are not sure about which trade names to add. --Aldiviva (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries.Anyway, I appreciate your answer.Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mikhail Nikolaevich Artemenkov

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mikhail Nikolaevich Artemenkov, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Reading Beans (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Your user page

Since November, your user page appears to have evolved into a form which has begun to breach our WP:USERPAGE guidance, as it now resembles a Wikipedia article. To avoid any risk of it being deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE, please remove the article-style formatting and all use of the third person in the first section. We do not need you to share information which is irrelevant to the purposes or needs of Wikipedia, such as your height, full birthdate or marital status, nor to present such content in an Infobox that resembles an article. (It is also unwise to make personal details such as birth date publicly visible. I can WP:REVDEL this for you, if you have second thoughts about making this public. Other information about you which is relevant to your editing interests is acceptable of course, but it is important that you do not attempt to create a 'Profile' for yourself which which looks like one of our mainspace articles.

Please address this, and I'd then be very happy to review it for you again if you let me know when you've found time to fix things. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Are you satisfied, Nick Moyes? Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not completely, I'm afraid.

  Since I first noticed your userpage, I've looked a little further at your contributions here. They do concern me, as they seem to stray somewhat into the category of WP:NOTHERE and of self-promotion.

  I have deleted User:Роман Сергеевич Сидоров/My Experience of Learning the Second Language because this was quite inappropriate for Wikipedia, as are any other non-Wikipedia related essays you might wish to write. That type of content is best kept for personal blogs, please, as you may not use us as a free webhost for your views or experiences.

  I might also advise you to delete the section of your userpage entitled 'Personal History', as this is also not relevant to your interests in editing Wikipedia. Indeed, you say "I'm not an active editor of this project, for I don't consider the rules of Wikipedia to be reasonable." I hope you won't think me unreasonable if I were to suggest it would also be worthwhile deleting the other blank subsections until such time as you do actually contribute something about them here. That said, I do see you have created some articles on ru.wikipedia, and you are welcome to use the {{illm}} template to link to them. Otherwise those sections just seem pointless.

  In summary, I see that on English Wikipedia you have made a total of 226 edits, but just 18 of those have been to mainspace articles, and 16 others to article talk pages. 106 have been to your own userpage, and this does start to concern me. I would respectfully suggest that from now on you focus on editing Wikipedia articles in mainspace, and less on building any sort of 'Profile' for yourself on your userpage. I note that you've been indefinitely partially blocked on ru.wiki from editing your userpage there, presumably for the same reason. Whilst actions taken there are nothing to do with us here, you might wish to learn from that lesson and pare down your userpage content to so as to avoid a similar experience happening here. All that being said, do please contribute to articles and talk pages where you can usefully add value to this encyclopaedia. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't have an opportunity to criticize Wikipedia, do I? Great. Wonderful. I didn't expect that the violation of elementary civic liberties is so terrifying in English Wikipedia. I've to remove this phrase, though.Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

    It has nothing to do with civil liberties. All my actions are policy-based. I'm happy to explain any of them further if you wish me to. However, I may have implied you should remove that single line I highlighted in green above. No, you may keep it in as your views about Wikipedia are germane to your reasons for editing or not editing; it was the rest of your personal history section which seemed to be straying off-topic for Wikipedia that was starting to concern me. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

    • Why do you suppose the contents of "Personal history" to be superflous and unnecessary. The thing is that I described and discussed my knowledge of the languages. You know, editing Wikipedia requires the knowledge of all the minutiae of several European languages, just because science itself became more international in the current century. By the by, I have been deleting all the superfluous and insignificant details in my userpage. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      I have seen that you've been acting on my request - and I am grateful. Thank you. I felt that the text in Personal History was superfluous - and not at all clear - and similar to much of the other writings you have posted about yourself and your life experiences. But as there's now a clear up of your userpage going on, and if you stop using English Wikipedia to write about yourself, I'm OK to let it stand. Frome here on in I hope your edits are solely to work constructively to improve this encyclopaedia. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      • I hope that you're satisfied with the present condition of my user page. I don't understand your logic, though. it's because the more you know about my temper, tastes. I'd say that the greatest lack of information about Wikipedians, including yourself, impedes talking to them As for my inability to edit Wikipedia, I've been studing the academical English, so I'm going to start writing various articles in a while, and, accordingly, I hope that I can try to create templates, userboxes, future articles in my personal page or its subdivisions.Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

        Thank you. I would simply reiterate that you need to be aware that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a platform for talking with other people (see WP:NOTSOCIAL). It's about building an encyclopaedia of notable things. With still only 18 edits to articles over 2 years out of a total of 238 edits, I suggest you focus more on content creation than constructing userboxes, or sharing information about yourself and seeking general views. You will find nobody is interested and you could then be viewed as being WP:NOTHERE. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Think Yourself / Think Now for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Think Yourself / Think Now is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Yourself / Think Now until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

 // Timothy :: talk  18:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Kirill Chereshko for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kirill Chereshko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Chereshko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Nahal International Short Film Festival

Hello Роман Сергеевич Сидоров, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Nahal International Short Film Festival, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahal International Short Film Festival.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Remsense}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Remsense诉 22:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Nahal International Short Film Festival

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nahal International Short Film Festival, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)