Legward

Phonological tables

Can you please just leave all of the phonological tables alone? I've been finding so many unorganized edits of the phonology sections done on many of the pages of North American indigenous languages. And it is not just you that is doing them, there all of these student editors from California State University, Los Angeles that are messing up all of the phonology sections of the language pages. It is you (User:Legward), User:Lesslypz, User:Karinaguardado, and many other students from the university. Please stop messing up the phonology sections, because it is so frustrating for me to have to constantly redo every edit you guys do, that messes up the phonological charts! Fdom5997 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some pretty extensive research in the phonology section, there were quite a few sounds not included in the old one. Sorry this is where you get your kicks and can feel authoritative, but there's quite a bit of information missing from that section.Legward (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Legward

No, the problem with your table is that it is a bit too excessive in explaining the phonetic values as well as the phonemes itself. I already explained the allophones of the consonant and vowel sounds in the description, so I do not need to put them in the charts. And I also, I have a better reliable source to back up the information provided. Your source that I looked at "Diccionario Práctico de la Lengua Kiliwa" is not a reliable source for the phonology because it does not give a phonological explanation of the sounds, and it also does not provide a phonological chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)