![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 69 |
Hi, I don't know whether it would be considered vandalism for me to directly edit the pronunciation indicated in the Banbha article. Can you see my comment on the Banbha talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banba#pronunciation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.177.184 ( talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you are an admin. Could you please delete my user page and talk page and then protect my user name as I want to leave wikipedia? Thanks for your help. Babub→ Talk 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Angr --
Re: edits over at SDL Trados, a few anon IPs and Special:Contributions/Ghislandi have edited the article to remove any mention of criticism of the software. I've been a user for over a decade, and there has been considerable criticism of various aspects of the software on many different online fora. I understand about reliability in general; my intent in adding the cites was not to make a claim one way or the other that the criticism was correct, but instead to reinforce that the criticism exists, which is what the anons and Ghislandi seem intent on scrubbing away. See Talk:SDL_Trados#SDL_Trados.23Criticism for some past mention of these issues.
Lack of backwards compatibility is not the only extant criticism, but the current state of the article seems to imply that it is. For example, complicated and error-prone licensing has been enough of a serious concern in the user community that SDL is advertising the simplified licensing scheme in SDL Studio 2011 as a selling point.
In this light, how best can criticism be included in the SDL Trados article? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". |
I think you misused Rollback on your last edit to Gooch. The edit made by the IP was not vandalism as they explained why they were removing the entry and probably felt they were improving the encyclopedia. Please consider discussing the entry. Thanks. GB fan 15:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
So now in the middle of a content dispute you revert to what you believe the page should look like and then use your admin tools to protect the page? Aren't you WP:INVOLVED? GB fan 15:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please, see my reply at Template talk:Respell#Displaying the schwa. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
have a happy one! Malangali ( talk) 00:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
for this. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 06:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
In June 2009, you added a merge tag to this article, but didn't provide any rationale or initiate a discussion. So now, it's three years later and no further activity or discussion has taken place. Can this be wrapped up soon? WTF? ( talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Enjoy. Uncle G ( talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you've commented on the talk page, thought I'd let you know that there appears to be an edit war starting up w at least one falsified ref. — kwami ( talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Angr, I don't feel you should close the AFD discussion for this article yet. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect the points raised in this discussion. The deletion debate needs to be left open / reopened pending adequate rewrite. Drew.ward ( talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr, please see this discussion. Thanks. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr! Context.
A little rite of passage for language nerds must surely be when they have their first dream in the language they're studying.
I still have dreams in Japanese... and I apologise, and ask if we can continue in English. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You probably didn't know, but you're all actually in one dispute. Uncle G ( talk) 08:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr
I've belatedly seen your addition to a thread from earlier in August. It's not an important point, but I thought you might be interested to know that I too pronounce the digammas in Homer (mentally I mean, while reading), because otherwise the failure to scan properly jars on me. Maid Marion ( talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr, I've been expanding language over the past couple of weeks and am now at the stage where I'd like some outside input before deciding whether it is worth to go through the GA process. I'd appreciate any comments you might have. I've set up a peerreview page here [ [1]]. Best. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It may or maynot be a requirewment, but British english is still preferred over American english. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you expand on your rationale and how you reached your conclusion? Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Please review English Language, here, thanks!-- Lucky102 ( talk) 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr, you reverted my edit and put Old English grammar back into the Old English language category, but the article is already in the Old English grammar category, which is within the category 'Old English language'. I feel the inclusion of the article in both categories is unecessary. Any chance of you agreeing with me and reverting to my edit? :) Hel-hama ( talk) 21:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
see german version to find the number of appr. 4000 graves destroyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.140.60 ( talk) 17:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Big top pee wee.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Where do you think I could find a free image? Keizers ( talk) 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you take a look? I've hit 3RR. — kwami ( talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm translating a description by Plukenet for the article on the fungus Calostoma cinnabarinum, and I wanted an independent set of eyes from someone with a better (and undoubtedly far more recent!) Latin and linguistics background than mine. I saw you had helped out on Wikiproject Latin quite a bit, and are active, so I'm hoping you'll have a spare moment. The original description is "Fungus pulverulentus, virginianus, caudice coralline, topiario opere contorto". Technically, the original description didn't have the punctuation, but that's helpfully provided by later sources. I'm good with most of this, but caudice coralline is giving me some problems. Caudice looks to me to be the ablative of caudex (tree trunk, but here being used to describe a mushroom's stalk). But I'm not sure that coralline (from corallinus, coral-red) is even correctly in agreement, because that looks a lot like the vocative from where I'm sitting. Wouldn't the ablative be corallino? My first guess here was "coral-red stalk", but given the apparent ablative (and the fact that it makes for a better description of the actual mushroom), I'm wondering if he wasn't going for "coral-red apart from the stalk", because ... actually using a noun for the spherical head would have been too hard, or something? In any case, if you've got eight Latin words worth of spare time, I'd sure appreciate your input. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. D B D 17:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 69 |
Hi, I don't know whether it would be considered vandalism for me to directly edit the pronunciation indicated in the Banbha article. Can you see my comment on the Banbha talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banba#pronunciation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.177.184 ( talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you are an admin. Could you please delete my user page and talk page and then protect my user name as I want to leave wikipedia? Thanks for your help. Babub→ Talk 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Angr --
Re: edits over at SDL Trados, a few anon IPs and Special:Contributions/Ghislandi have edited the article to remove any mention of criticism of the software. I've been a user for over a decade, and there has been considerable criticism of various aspects of the software on many different online fora. I understand about reliability in general; my intent in adding the cites was not to make a claim one way or the other that the criticism was correct, but instead to reinforce that the criticism exists, which is what the anons and Ghislandi seem intent on scrubbing away. See Talk:SDL_Trados#SDL_Trados.23Criticism for some past mention of these issues.
Lack of backwards compatibility is not the only extant criticism, but the current state of the article seems to imply that it is. For example, complicated and error-prone licensing has been enough of a serious concern in the user community that SDL is advertising the simplified licensing scheme in SDL Studio 2011 as a selling point.
In this light, how best can criticism be included in the SDL Trados article? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". |
I think you misused Rollback on your last edit to Gooch. The edit made by the IP was not vandalism as they explained why they were removing the entry and probably felt they were improving the encyclopedia. Please consider discussing the entry. Thanks. GB fan 15:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
So now in the middle of a content dispute you revert to what you believe the page should look like and then use your admin tools to protect the page? Aren't you WP:INVOLVED? GB fan 15:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please, see my reply at Template talk:Respell#Displaying the schwa. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
have a happy one! Malangali ( talk) 00:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
for this. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 06:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
In June 2009, you added a merge tag to this article, but didn't provide any rationale or initiate a discussion. So now, it's three years later and no further activity or discussion has taken place. Can this be wrapped up soon? WTF? ( talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Enjoy. Uncle G ( talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you've commented on the talk page, thought I'd let you know that there appears to be an edit war starting up w at least one falsified ref. — kwami ( talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Angr, I don't feel you should close the AFD discussion for this article yet. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect the points raised in this discussion. The deletion debate needs to be left open / reopened pending adequate rewrite. Drew.ward ( talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr, please see this discussion. Thanks. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr! Context.
A little rite of passage for language nerds must surely be when they have their first dream in the language they're studying.
I still have dreams in Japanese... and I apologise, and ask if we can continue in English. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You probably didn't know, but you're all actually in one dispute. Uncle G ( talk) 08:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr
I've belatedly seen your addition to a thread from earlier in August. It's not an important point, but I thought you might be interested to know that I too pronounce the digammas in Homer (mentally I mean, while reading), because otherwise the failure to scan properly jars on me. Maid Marion ( talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr, I've been expanding language over the past couple of weeks and am now at the stage where I'd like some outside input before deciding whether it is worth to go through the GA process. I'd appreciate any comments you might have. I've set up a peerreview page here [ [1]]. Best. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It may or maynot be a requirewment, but British english is still preferred over American english. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you expand on your rationale and how you reached your conclusion? Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Please review English Language, here, thanks!-- Lucky102 ( talk) 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Angr, you reverted my edit and put Old English grammar back into the Old English language category, but the article is already in the Old English grammar category, which is within the category 'Old English language'. I feel the inclusion of the article in both categories is unecessary. Any chance of you agreeing with me and reverting to my edit? :) Hel-hama ( talk) 21:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
see german version to find the number of appr. 4000 graves destroyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.140.60 ( talk) 17:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Big top pee wee.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Where do you think I could find a free image? Keizers ( talk) 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you take a look? I've hit 3RR. — kwami ( talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm translating a description by Plukenet for the article on the fungus Calostoma cinnabarinum, and I wanted an independent set of eyes from someone with a better (and undoubtedly far more recent!) Latin and linguistics background than mine. I saw you had helped out on Wikiproject Latin quite a bit, and are active, so I'm hoping you'll have a spare moment. The original description is "Fungus pulverulentus, virginianus, caudice coralline, topiario opere contorto". Technically, the original description didn't have the punctuation, but that's helpfully provided by later sources. I'm good with most of this, but caudice coralline is giving me some problems. Caudice looks to me to be the ablative of caudex (tree trunk, but here being used to describe a mushroom's stalk). But I'm not sure that coralline (from corallinus, coral-red) is even correctly in agreement, because that looks a lot like the vocative from where I'm sitting. Wouldn't the ablative be corallino? My first guess here was "coral-red stalk", but given the apparent ablative (and the fact that it makes for a better description of the actual mushroom), I'm wondering if he wasn't going for "coral-red apart from the stalk", because ... actually using a noun for the spherical head would have been too hard, or something? In any case, if you've got eight Latin words worth of spare time, I'd sure appreciate your input. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. D B D 17:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)