Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Sérgio R R Santos. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Sérgio R R Santos, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Sérgio R R Santos in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Sérgio R R Santos you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Sérgio R R Santos will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Sérgio R R Santos, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
Completely unwarrented block by @Fenakhay; I just made a statement describing the brief interaction I had with him, which you can check here;
the word I used to describe him was mentally ill, which is not an insult, just a description - I myself have mental illness, and I would never consider that an insult. Just one more thing, from the wiktionary page on blocking policy: "7–31 days - Second blocks for persistent or repeat offenders." - this is my first block, and not for anything related to editing.
This is clearly an abuse of authority and a revengeful block by an admin who felt offended by something I said about him, even though if you check our interaction, in his very first reply he, unprompted, starts to immediately throw insults at me for no reason whatsoever.
@Fenakhay This user reached out to me to appeal his block and I'm inclined to agree that a month is long for a first offense. That said, I don't condone his unacceptable behavior, for which he seems unapologetic. Ultimateria (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for coming here, @Ultimateria, but I still don't understand how my behaviour was so unacceptable as compared to the way he behaved towards me. This was the very first reply he gave to me:
"Because it is a load of crap? Edit languages you know and don't do OR in Afro-Asiatic languages as you seem incompetent in that regards..(oh, and he only even bothered to reply after I threatened to revert his edits) And when he finally adressed my arguments, he kept referring to me in the third person the whole time, and always with a sneering tone, while all I did was add a little bit of sarcasm to my replies, because honestly the fact that he was so aggravated for apparently no reason kind of amused me. You don't get to act like a lunatic and then get all offended when someone calls you one, and I'm honestly shocked that someone with such a short temper like @Fenakhay gets to be an administrator. I know I'm not doing myself any favours by continuing to argue the issue, i know if I just appologised and bowed my head this would probably be solved a lot quicker; but I will not submit to this bullying behaviour, so yes, you could say that i am unapologetic.
And I will say again that i dint even bother to reach out to him directly because i do not think he is a reasonable person, and the proof of that is that he initially had me blocked FOR ONE YEAR! For a first offence! And, for a final nail in my coffin, when I'm unblocked I wil try to do anything in my power to make sure he loses his administrator privileges. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let me just say one more thing in my defense: this all started because I made a change on the etymology of Marrocos, which @Fenakhay then reverted, and even though at the end of our contentious encounter I said I was gonna revert his revert, I didn't do it, because i realised that my edit was basicaly original research (even though the threshold for OR seems lower on wiktionary then on wikipedia, based on what i've seen), and instead started a discussion on the etymology in the discussion page and in the Etymology Scriptorium. I haven't started any edit war, most of my edits that were reverted, I didn't revert them back, and the very few that I did (only two if I remember correctly) was only after contacting the respective user. In wikipedia, I had been "correcting" (in my view) a lot of portuguese pronunciations, until user @IvanScrooge98 kindly pointed out to me the current policy and reverted all my edits, which I accepted and stopped making those edits. I'd also like to ping user @Vorziblix who can vouch for my behaviour, particularly regarding the work I've been doing on the Coptic language; he has recently reverted some of my changes and kindly explained why he did it in the edit summary, as it should be done. That's what particullarly pisses me off, I was on a roll with Coptic and really excited to be contributing to wiktionary, I had just finished the entire page of ⲡⲱϣⲛ when I clicked reply and found out I'd been blocked, not even allowing me to save the page. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ve just been pinged so I haven’t looked into what really happened yet, but by the looks of it it seems yet another case of @Fenakhay patronizing the project with their indiscriminate and barely explained bulk reverts and aggressive blocking policy. I was a “victim” of their behavior fairly recently and I reported them, but unfortunately my requests fell on deaf ears. This attitude needs to stop. That’s not how you engage constructively with other users, even if they make mistakes. (parla con me)18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, i saw you also had some trouble with him when I checked his talk page, thinking that with someone with his temper this couldnt be the first time. I'm surprised there werent more complaints! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, when I was trying to ping you for some reason your name didn't appear in the automated suggestions, so I had to do it "by hand", copying your userpage adress. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Fenakhay's tone was dismissive in the Marrocos discussion, but you didn't hesitate to escalate the situation there or in the Tea Room discussion with Nicodene. Your line to Nicodene, "You're really starting to get on my nerves with your arrogance and lack of respect - are you perhaps related to @Fenakhay ?" is so uncalled for that I'm at a loss for words. Your argument with him was over, yet you chose to antagonize him in an unrelated setting. That choice was so immature that I find it concerning. Ultimateria (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since Sérgio has decided to tie his issues with me and Fenakhay (also, as we will see below, Fayfreak) together I suppose I should weigh in.
There are at least three inaccuracies in the account he has presented on this page.
1) the word I used to describe him was mentally ill, which is not an insult, just a description - I myself have mental illness, and I would never consider that an insult
That it was in fact meant as an insult is made rather clear by the use of “lunatic” in the following comment.
2) And when he finally adressed my arguments, he kept referring to me in the third person the whole time
Fayfreak's comment doesn't seem “sneering” or rude at all. (The same can't be said of the reply to it.)
3) even though at the end of our contentious encounter I said I was gonna revert his revert, I didn't do it and instead started a discussion on the etymology in the discussion page and in the Etymology Scriptorium.
Those discussions were started on 18 August and 29 August. The comment “at the end of our contentious encounter I said I was gonna revert his revert” came on 1 September – after, and not before, the aforementioned.
Having been a busy little bee have we? Well to be honest I hadn't even realise Fenakhay had tag-teamed his other minion Fayfreak, who until then I'd only had pleasant interactions with. This is truly a case of the lunatics taking care of the asylum.
"3) even though at the end of our contentious encounter I said I was gonna revert his revert, I didn't do it and instead started a discussion on the etymology in the discussion page and in the Etymology Scriptorium. Those discussions were started on 18 August and 29 August. The comment “at the end of our contentious encounter I said I was gonna revert his revert” came on 1 September – after, and not before, the aforementioned." So, I started the discussion even before that - what's your point, dipshit? Keep coming to my talk page with your totally not obcessed and normal research so I can print it and wipe my arse with it. Fuck it. I don't care anymore. I was having a great time in this place until you people started to annoy me. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh my God, I feel like I'm going insane... I chose to antagonize him?? I didn't hesitate to escalate the situation? I've been nothing but patient enduring their constant condescention and insults to my intelligence, there's only so much a man can take until being pushed over the edge; the discussion on Membrillo was pretty much over, when Nicodene kept coming back and when i asked for what his arguments were, he kept posting over and over again some source for me to check. When I finally checked it, it was just a few words he could've written himself, which makes me think he was deliberatly trying to annoy me. Listen, if you're not gonna help me, then please just stop posting here and giving me false hopes. Let me just say I was having a perfect good time on wiktionary, until these two creatures crossed my path. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You were pointed to a basic widely-used reference manual for Spanish etymologies which contained valuable information on membrillo that you were unaware of. Instead of spending a few seconds reading it, you decided to accuse me of being incapable of thinking for myself (“if you wanna accept all the opinions of the scholars you study without questioning be my guest”, “defer to whatever linguistics god you believe in”) and said that the science on this would benefit from my death (“science advances one funeral at a time”).
You were blocked, as far as I can see, for pinging an admin to accuse him of having mental problems. In the appeal against this block, you continue to throw out insults such as:
“these two creatures” (at me and Fenakhay)
“his other minion” (at Fayfreak and by implication me as well)
"and said that the science on this would benefit from my death (“science advances one funeral at a time”)." - Wow, wow, wow, listen, I dont give a shit about what you have to say but this needs to be clarified: I was reffering to a Max Planck quote (or principle, more accurately) that means, if you had bothered to look it up, that science advances not by the old scientists accepting new ideas, but by younger scientists coming up with them; I, at NO POINT suggested what you said I did about yourself, let's make that clear; I was making a general comment about how ideas evolve, and if I wasn't clear enough I appologise. It was never my intencion to make you think that I was speciffically talking about your life.
What the hell are you even talking about? You know what, I take back my appology; the fact that you decided to completely ignore my clarifications on such a serious matter makes me think there was no missunderstanding - you "missunderstood" it on purpose, and now you come here with that bullshit to make people think that I threatened your life. And you get to make such serious accuations scott free, while I get blocked for a simple - and accurate- remark. It really seems the lunatics took over the asylum, I never expected Wiktionary to be run this way. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That comment was in response to your “why the hell do you keep changing your comments in the middle of my reply?”
I didn't say you threatened my life, but rather that you said that science would benefit from my death. In response to my pointing out (below) that that is what Max Planck's quote amounts to, in his own words, your counterargument is apparently “eat shit”. As there isn't any factual way to engage with that, I've nothing further to add. Nicodene (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then why do you keep coming here to pester me? Don't you have work to do on wiktionary, pages to create, to improve - the world needs your knowledge! I'm already blocked, you people have won, congratulations, you managed to push me over the edge! Stop annoying me! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the words of Max Planck himself:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (emphasis mine)
Yes, go tell mom and dad. You already came here like a kid who keeps a notebook of all the times the other kids were mean to him - conveniently forgetting to include the parts where you instigated it. this page was supposed to be a conversation betwin admins, me, and the admin who blocked me - who hasn't even bothered to show his ass in this page, which again proves my point thst he is not a reasonable person.
You know, i have to grant you that you played a very good game, laying the trap for me and until I stupidly fell on it.
Also, I couldnt let this go:"You were pointed to a basic widely-used reference manual for Spanish etymologies which contained valuable information on membrillo that you were unaware of" - the valuable information being a guy's theory/opinion, lol. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and to answer your question:
"7–31 days - Second blocks for persistent or repeat offenders."
this page was supposed to be a conversation betwin admins, me, and the admin who blocked me
That seems inconsistent with your summoning IvanScrooge98, who isn't an admin.
You know, i have to grant you that you played a very good game, laying the trap for me and until I stupidly fell on it.
If your response to being called out for throwing out vulgar insults is to keep doing it (e.g. “hasn't bothered to show his ass” right before the above quote), that's on you.
the valuable information being a guy's theory/opinion, lol
No, valuable information like the fact that the /ll/ form and the “quince” sense are both already attested in Latin.
…which is the one i already have for my FIRST offence
You're up to nearly a dozen offences right on this page, including several against me (e.g. “dipshit”).
This is a serious question - how old are you? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2024
So you have no intention to ever stop throwing insults at me, even after being called out for it repeatedly (png: @Benwing2). From “lunatics” to “dipshit”, from “kid”+“how old are you?” to “eat shit”, from “I dont give a shit” to “coming to my talk page with your totally not obcessed and normal research so I can print it and wipe my arse with it”. Nicodene (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now asking for someone's age is an insult! Now I've heard it all! I'm already blocked, leave alone snowflake. Oh no, I just called you another nasty super offensive name, better ping all the admins in this website, your honour must be defended! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, knowing there's no chance in hell that i'll get unblocked or even have it reduced, let me claryfy some things:
It was brought to my attencion that the user I was referring to when I made my extremely offensive remarks (/s), was in fact @Fay Freak and not @Fenakhay; thats because when he replyed to me I did see he pinged Fenakahy, which I didn't understand why - couldn't he himself answer to my very simple question? - , and, them having very similar names I didn't even notice that was Fayfreak who replied to my and not Fenakhay, and not being accostumed to Fay Freak's, let's say, unique style of arguing, I thought it was the same angry guy who had replied first to me. Knowing that now, and rereading Fay Freaks response, it doesn't indeed sound as snickering as at first it felt to me, it's more like amusing and quite sui generis. All this could have been avoided if Fenakhay just behaved like a grown up and explained to me what was wrong wit my edit, but apparently he is a very busy man who doesn't have time to interact with other users or even bother to show his face here.
Regarding my interactions with Nicodene on the membrillo page, I was the one who kept trying to put an end to the discussion, who honestly, was getting tiring:
" I have a different view on it, but anyway, i feel we're beating a dead horse, we've both made our claims and lets move on from it." (I dont how to get the quotations all green and stuff like you guys)
He then refered at my "amateurish (attempts at an) argument", which was what set me off, an honestly, now that I re-read my reply it does sound like I went too far.
He then replied "So you prefer to write out more useless complaints instead of actually spending two minutes (or even two seconds) reading relevant information. That is not surprising considering the way this has gone so far.", which, naturally, only aggravated me even more; still, I tried to put again an end to the discussion, while making a joke about me being lazy (which, well, I am) do defuse the situation:
"there's no point in us keep bickering about this subject anymore; none of us is gonna change the other's mind anyway. But I'm sure we'll meet again. I've been wanting to reply to you on caixa but i have been too lazy, and have being busy working on Coptic witkionary.". To which he replied:
"Information relevant to the development of /mbɾ/ is also available there. You have indeed been “too lazy”, and that - when combined with your being uninformed - makes talking to you a complete waste of time. I don't know why I bother." - which, as you can imagine, only increased my aggravation with him, and then it all went downhill from there. I have to say, as I kept writing this and reviewing the conversation I do find my conduct to have been excessive, but I also have to say that I felt insulted by Nicodene's condescending tone; and he kept going on and on for me to consult this manual, when he himself could've just written what the argument was, which was just a few words, so every time he speaks to me I feel this aura of academic condescention - maybe it's just me.
Let me just say one final thing: because of my mental condition - and this is not an excuse, just some context - I don't have much interaction with people in real life, only a year ago I finally had the courage to create a wiktionary profile, when I saw that the amazing portuguese expression fazer das tripas coração wasn't included so I created it. For whatever reason I only started editing again a year later, mainly portuguese an coptic entries. So, not having that much experience dealing with people, it is possible that I might have misinterpreted the tone of some of my interlocutors, and honestly I am surprised at the aggresivity of some of my replies, so, if anybody felt offended by something I said to them, I'd like to apologise. But I still maintain that @Fenakhay's behaviour towards me was totally innapropriate, especially him being an administrator. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn’t feeling any antagony before I read all the vulgarities at this place. If these were supposed to be hyperboles, I still advise to abstain from them.
As for referring to someone in the third person the whole time, it is because in response to someone on his talk page the referent of the pronoun would have been misinterpreted. It happens differently if one has two other men in person and can support his address with direction, paralanguage and facial expression. Likely the third person is even less confrontational in the language of distance. The cordiality expectations for the language of immediacy are often misgeneralized on the internet due to its only ideally immediate upload and consumption.
I don’t see information justifying the assumption of any of the mentioned users being mentally ill, except what you admit now of you and what is known from myself. You weren’t describing anything, if it is not want of interaction, which you hyperbolized again, since by Occam’s razor, if not the principle of charity, it was more befitting to tone down the maximalist hypothesis of anyone being mentally incapacitated, as perhaps being only situational stress or technical struggle for words, for example. Also fundamental attribution error. And it does not even say anything, mental illness does not per se mean someone is wrong (or right), it could only explain a pattern, and create a contrast. There are lots of intersubjective comparisons to be made before being so in-your-face.
Planck's principle is false on the working level. It does not mean you can be more confrontational because you are new or the others are oldfags—I think this is what you were trying to express with it, even though only internally. That you don't have much interaction — this is a reason, though not a justification for it. You see I had to simulate interaction a lot to get it right. I look forward to having you here again, don’t let us or you be offended so easily and leave it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your reply and I am deeply sorry to have missinterpreted and offended you. Now that I'm calmer I can see that indeed I was out of line, even if I still dont consider it particularly insulting myself, I shoudn't have said it. And sorry for the vulgar language, at the time I was rock-bottom so I didn't even care anymore. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In order for regular users not to be offended or scared away from the project, though, the ones in charge are supposed to set the example by being prone to discussion instead of clinging on the bad habit of dictating the content of the project before caring to explain their disagreement. (parla con me)14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The difference is now you seem to have understood where you were wrong, while the admin, who has not even bothered checking this page despite multiple pings and an endless history of bullying, will keep acting like the owner of Wiktionary undisturbed. Even more, due to this incident from now on you may be labeled as a confrontational user if you bring up any issue. I’ve been through this myself (per my first comment). Unlike Wikipedia, this project has sadly become very toxic. (parla con me)14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Nicodene, I'm sorry to bother you, I'm sure you're just sick of me by now, but it would really help me to hear from you. As I was re-reading our conversations, still in a state of anger, looking for something negative to attribute to you, I realised there were none, and that I had indeed overreacted and was out of line; I missinterpreted your tone as being threatening and so I became aggressive, and I agree that blocking me was the right decision, even if I think that one month is still a bit excessive. I want to offer you my sincere apologies for everything I said to you, and I understand if you're not willing to accept them. And I really need to emphasise that I truly didn't mean that Max Planck quote in the way you perceived it, I would NEVER go that far, you must believe me on that. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Before I said anything you’ve quoted from the membrillo thread, you threw out “If you wanna accept all the opinions of the scholars you study without questioning be my guest science advances one funeral at a time”, the same sentiment later expressed as “stay clinging to the opinions -and they are opinions- of your long dead Masters”. Would being perfectly diplomatic in response to that have helped? I have been so on this page, only for you to constantly fling insults like “dipshit”.
In sum, engaging with you to explain why something is incorrect has been an excruciating experience. The correct approach really does seem to be to simply revert (as on Marrocos) and then improve the entry. In any case, adieu. Nicodene (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, unfortunately, we happen to have similar interests in common (proto-romance), so we will have to deal with each other. I don't understand why you feel especially offended by those quotes regarding the scholars, I do respect their work immensely, but when it comes to linguistics, you cant just say "this is the correct form/way"; you can't come up with a mathematical formula that proves that this view is right and that view is wrong; when it comes, for instance, Coromines, his research work was evidently phenomenal - his name keeps coming across my eyes; however, when it comes to etymologies, especially the more tricky ones, his - or anyone elses's - opinion is just that, even if a highly informed one. Being a great scholar doesn't give you the magical ability to discover the origins of words - it sure makes you more qualified than the average person, but doesn't make you infallible. Look at the obvious examples I gave you of linguists being wrong (romã, osga) That's what I meant with the Planck quote, Coromines', and others' work will be one day supperseded by the work of newer linguists - not by me of course, my damaged brain doesn't allow me to. Adieu to you to and I'm truly sorry for everything; what can I say, I'm a dipshit. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad that the discussion has cooled down and I apologize for editing without responding yesterday. To answer Nicodene's earlier question about the policy for repeating blockable behavior: there isn't a policy that addresses that specific issue, so I'm going to use my best judgment. I'm going to treat everything that happened in recent days as a first offence but apply the maximum block of one week from the original block date. Fenakhay may object, but we should be consistent with policy. I advise Sérgio to approach discussions with a more level head and step away when things get heated. The maximum block for a second offense is 31 days and I won't hesitate to enforce it if the need arises — but I hope it won't. Ultimateria (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much @Ultimateria, and I would like to apologise to you too for lashing out at you. I assure you this has been quite a learning experience for me, and I will do my best to act differently in the future. I'd still like to mantain, however, that @Fenakhay's initial response to me was not behaviour worthy of an administrator, and i'll leave it at that. He still refuses to come here and say the bare minimum, but anyway i'm not even longer bothered by that. He has a bad temper, and i'll try my best to try to avoid him in the future but if he behaves like that again i'll have to file some complaints. Anyway thanks for having the patience for going through my mental breakdown, I'm sure you've got better things to do. Much appreciated and stay well. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your repeated insults towards Nicodene and me are unacceptable. They show a lack of respect and a bad temper, which is disruptive in general.
Attacking me because you confused me for Fay Freak indicates a lack of clear judgment. It seems you only see red when someone disagrees with you, which isn’t helpful.
You haven't shown any willingness to recognize or reflect on your behavior. This makes it difficult to have constructive interactions with you.
Regarding your contributions, when I see poorly researched OR etymologies, I revert them immediately because they reflect badly on us and are not worth correcting on the spot. You display a shallow understanding of the relevant languages, such as Berber and Arabic, leading to incorrect connections, à la Proto-Altaic. For instance, using buzzwords like imala incorrectly, especially when it does not apply to the word مُرَّاكُش(murrākuš) since it is pronounced with an emphatic "r" sound, shows a lack of depth in your knowledge.
If you do not change your behavior and focus on areas where you can contribute usefully without creating issues, you'll likely be blocked again. We are not here to continually clean up after you. And the fact that you haven't apologized to me for calling me "mentally ill" reflects poorly on you. — Fenakhay(حيطي · مساهماتي)07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I saw your verification request for the pronunciation of hauçá. The "h" in hauçá is indeed never pronounced as /ʁ/ - it's either silent or pronounced as /h/ (you can hear this in this video (skip to 2:26), where the guy clearly says /haʊ̯ˈsa/). In Brazilian Portuguese an initial "r" is always pronounced as /h/, so when I added the pronunciation with "r", it was to reflect that. I’ve now updated the entry to include /ʁawˈsa/ as an alternate pronunciation specifically for Brazilian Portuguese. Do you mind if I remove your request? thank you Protegmatic (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Go ahead and remove it. I din't corrected it myself because honestly, as someone who is not "programming inclined", so to speak, I have some difficulty in using and/or modifying the currently used pt-IPA template - in the case of ahá I had to manually introduce the pronunciation because I don't know of a way to have the sound in all dialects, which, not being a sound typically used in Portuguese, it does exist in a few interjections and a few recent borrowings, like Baha'i, who I almost always heard being pronounced in Portugal, which otherwise tends to just not pronounce it at all unlike Brazil - compare the Portuguese pronunciation of Hip-Hop as versus the Brazilian one . Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've been there before but to be honest I don't have much patience to read through all that. I'm impressed by the programming aspect of it, but at the same time I feel the pt-IPA template is getting a bit out of control, some entries just have too much information in the pronunciation part, and pretty much all of the non-Lisbon european dialects have incorrect information. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
