User talk:Doric Loon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Yiddish page[edit]

Hey Doric Loon, were you planning to return to the Yiddish page at all? It desperately needs someone with your erudition to help out. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics[edit]

Hi Doric Loon, your remark on Talk:French grammar about the article Relative pronoun that "It is not meant to be about any one language..." made me think that you might like the linguistics section of project Countering Systemic Bias. I'd be curious to know your thoughts! mark 11:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll mention it there. --Doric Loon 18:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umlaut "diacritic"[edit]

It's a well known quagmire, and much of what you've done with the umlaut article is very good, but I am somewhat disturbed by some other details.

Your usage of the term "umlaut diacritic" in connection with certain languages is contradicting since the text still, correctly, notes that the dots do not serve as diacritics. In particular your change of the other languages heading seems to call for revision or reversion.

I'm a pretty irregular contributor to Wikipedia these days, but I guess I will try to change (back) some of your edits.
--Ruhrjung 06:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your prerogative, but I'm not sure what your objection is. This sign was designed for German where it has a very logical function, and was borrowed into some other languages, where it simply represents a sound without the same relational function, but significantly in these languages it represents the same sound as in German - or the nearest phoneme. So it IS the Umlaut diacritic which has been borrowed in a simplified fashion. I think Swedes do think of Ä as A with dots; the fact that the treat it as a separate letter when alphabetising doesn't change where it comes from. But by all means try to express these things more clearly. --Doric Loon 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's always hard to know how people think, but (having lived four year there and having worked with Danes in Denmark) I would suggest that they don't think so any more than we think of a 'R' as a P-with-an-extra-line, or the danes think of 'æ' as a+e. If one has to describe the character for someone who doesn't know it, of course that's how to express it, but in our everyday thinking one doesn't go around considering 'W' and 'U' as variants of 'V', does one?
 :-)
--Ruhrjung 08:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though it's a bolle-a they have in Danish, not a double-dotted a like in Swedish, isn't it? (Just going by the Wiki articles on the alphabets of these languages - I don't speak them at all!) You will see I changed a couple of things in this section before I saw your comments, and changed the title of the section after I saw it, so maybe you are a little happier now, but go ahead and make improvements if you see fit. The only thing I would ask is, if these symbols are NOT to be called umlaut diacritics in these languages, should they be in this article at all? --Doric Loon 06:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job and thanks for your work on ablaut[edit]

Ditto. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Germanic verbs[edit]

Hi Doric loon, and thanks for your kind comments on my work. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Old Norse. I consult secondary sources. I will have a look for information about strong verbs in Old Norse, but I don't think I can do the work as fast as you hope. Concerning modern Scandinavian, I think Bokmål would be the best example, because it is in many ways intermediary between Swedish and Danish. You could try with a Norwegian contributor, such as User:Egil.--Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS, you're doing amazing work on the verbs. Keep up with your good work.--Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doric Loon, I have responded to your request to add the Afrikaans forms to the Germanic weak verbs table. The distinction between strong and weak verbs does not exist in Afrikaans as the language has lost the strong verb so all verbs follow the weak pattern. For example "he sang/he has sung/he had sung" (for practical purposes Afrikaans only uses the perfect tense to express the past) is hy het gesing rather than the ancestral Dutch hy heeft gezongen. This follows exactly the same pattern as werk: "he worked/has worked/had worked" is hy het gewerk.

Hope this helps. Booshank 12:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

moving articles into parent Category:Germanic languages[edit]

Hey, I was just wondering why you are moving massive numbers of articles from West Germanic languages and East Germanic languages to the parent category. If these categories are depopulated of their languages, then they're rather useless, eh? --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Laura, the reason is that the category system for Germanic philology seemed pretty chaotic (as is that for Indo-European). I found it very difficult at first to get an overview of what had already been done, and it seems other people are too, because in the last couple of days one user has written a long (and excellent) article on an phenomenon which already had an article under a different title. So I thought I would try to simplify things by experimenting with a single category for Germanic languages. You are right - that would then render the sub-categories redundant. But now I am wondering if this is really helping or not. Try it out yourself and see what you think. I'll do no more until I get some more feedback. --Doric Loon 17:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general it's a good idea to have articles in the lowest possible category. For one thing, it keeps the number of articles in any given category down to a manageable size. I would say any article specific to North, East, or West Germanic should be in the respective subcategories, and the only articles in Category:Germanic languages should be North Germanic languages, East Germanic languages, West Germanic languages (since the title article of a subcategory belongs in the parent category as well as the subcat), plus articles on phenomena shared by all branches. --Angr/comhrá 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Source[edit]

Hi Doric loon, here is a link to strong verbs in Old Norse [1], weak verbs: [2], and irregular verbs: [3], [4].--Wiglaf 21:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks interesting. Though the "holy language", English purged of non-Germanic elements for use in holy rites, is a truly weird idea. --Doric Loon 08:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a weird idea. However, they have scanned the information from a scholarly work and I am pretty sure about the reliability.--Wiglaf 11:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Germany[edit]

Thanks for your constructive contributions to the Germany page. Question: Where is the "POV" in the article that Gidonb was talking about? I can't see any. PS I have long stopped posting on the Germany Talk page, because there is too much aggro there. - Heimdal 15:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, no, I don't see his point. But I gather there has been a history of arguments on this page, and I haven't followed it, so I don't want to judge that. I would advise you not to stop posting on the talk page unless you intend to stop editing the article, because you need to justify what you are doing. But if there is aggro, stay sober and factual. --Doric Loon 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Every time we've got a half-way decent Germany page, here come the loonies to disrupt the page. We've seen all that before. Gidonb is well-known for his hatred of Germany and the Germans. I think it's got to do with his personal background - because, apparently, his family was a victim of the Holocaust. Some months ago he insisted on adding an image of a Nazi camp mass grave to the article, which I reverted. Since then it's war between us. Just try to discuss with such a person. It's impossible. - Heimdal 12:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the Germany talk page. I just read the above accusations for the first time. Being of German descent, a child to a father who fosters German culture worldwide, and strengthening the cultural aspects of the Germany article in the past, I was amazed to read Heimdal's interpretation of my efforts. Yet there is no need to answer my posting and I will not answer subsequent accusations, if any are placed here again. I just thought that some word of disagreement is necessary as these may effect my reputation on Wikipedia. I favor a discussion of the contents of any article on the relevant talk page, without insults. gidonb 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified that. It confirms my suspicion that there is no really big issue here. This is an irritation which has gone out of control, and I am obviously not the only one who is bewildered by it. --Doric Loon 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Doric Loon, I wanted to inform you that User:Gidonb has just deleted your piece about the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (ZJD) which you posted yesterday on the Germany page. I reverted, not least to save your edits. Please excuse me this shameful act of vandalism. - Heimdal 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet another shameful accusation in a list of too many lies. The text has been moved to another article, as explained in the edit summaries. Only one person vandalises the Germany page and thinks that he can do whatever he likes, while telling plain lies about the course of events. Heimdal went as far as to delete large sections of the Germany talk page, including your comments. This is my last reaction to his lies on this page. gidonb 15:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please spare us from moving edits to other articles. Who asked you to do so anyway. - Heimdal 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of an overview article is to point to the relevant places. To me it is not so important whether this information is in Germany as that the reader of Germany can easily find the links to the places he or she needs to go. There has to be a link to the ZJD in some form. Surely, though, three lines on today's Jews is not too much, given that, precisely in view of the Holocaust, the situation of Jews in today's Germany is something lots of people must wonder about! And I would give the Muslims more space too. Remember, this article should be about today's Germany, and the reason some people were arguing that the history section was too long was because they wanted to make space for that. There is no pressure at present to shorten the information on contemporary affairs. --Doric Loon 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Geschichtsaufarbeitung [edit]

I thought vaguely remembered the concept being slightly distinct from Vergangenheitsbewältigung, but if you are sure they are effectively the same, the redirect is fine... I also notice that the German 'pedia has no article on Geschichtsaufarbeitung, and I'm sure they know best, so I'm fine with this. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maps[edit]

File:Benrath-Speyer.PNG
The Benrath and Speyer lines are marked in red

Thanks for clarifying. I guess it is now only the combination tz that I am a bit puzzled about. Was it pronounced [tz] or was it a way of writing ts? I am sorry if it sounds like a silly question.

As for maps, I'd love to make some. Just tell me what kind of map you would like, and allow me some time for research.--Wiglaf 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, if you want someone who knows Old Norse well, you could leave a message to User:Haukurth.--Wiglaf 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have made a map. I am not completely happy about the colour composition, but I chose yellow, green and blue in order to show continuity. Red was chosen for the borders to make them more clear as black was already taken. Don't hesitate to ask for changes.--Wiglaf 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sound changes to and from Old Irish[edit]

Hi, For PIE -> Old Irish the standard is Holger Pedersen's Vergleichende Grammatik der Keltischen Sprachen, or if you don't read German, its abridged translation Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar by Henry Lewis. It also include PIE -> Welsh/Cornish/Breton. I don't know of anything adequate for OIr. -> Scots Gaelic, I'm afraid. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main alternative to lexical diffusion is the Neogrammarian hypothesis that sound change applies simultaneously to all words in which the context of the sound change is found. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

grammatischer wechsel, wandel[edit]

i've never heard of either of these terms used in english historical linguistics and i think it would be preferable if possible to use more descriptive english terms, all the more so since the literal meaning of these german terms is so vague. for example, what you call "wandel" is known to me as "pre-nasal raising"; since that term could describe various sorts of changes, however, the preferable title would be "Germanic pre-nasal raising". as for "grammatischer wechsel", all the old english books i've seen simply list this as "due to verner's law"; hence, you might simply want to merge this into "verner's law" as a "synchronic effects" section.

see also my comments in Talk:West Germanic strong verb. Benwing 04:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Benwig, I would certainly be against merging GW with VL, as it is too important a phenomenon for that. I would be afraid that the same might happen to VL as often happens to Ablaut, namely that the diachronic phenomenon which affects the entirel language is generally seen as nothing more than the synchronic effect in the verb paradigm. But I don't mind using English-language terminology when there is any. In these cases I only know the German terms, but your suggestion of "Pre-nasal raising" seems OK, so go for it. It's more descriptive than Wandel anyway. For GW, though, you don't seem to have an English term to offer me, in which case I would tend to leave it as it is. At the end of the day, it was Germans who invented this discipline back in the 19th century, so we can accept with a little humility that some of the terminology is German - the amount of English terminology which the Germans have accepted in science and technology is very much greater! --Doric Loon 07:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Medieval German Literature[edit]

If you had to move medieval German literature, with a lower-case l, to medieval German Literature with a capital L, then why didn't you just move the page instead of doing a copy-and-paste? That would have kept the edit history intact, but instead you've mangled it. I was going to move it back, because the L is incorrectly capitalized, but now I have to do another copy-and-paste that will leave the edit history in two distinct places. Michael Hardy 13:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, well I certainly didn't set out to move that page, but possibly I was editing two files at once and made a cock-up. It happens. --Doric Loon 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Disruption of 1843[edit]

I have written this up, think you might like to take a look? I've also done quuite a lot of work on the Free Church of Scotland and the related Presbyterian denominations - probably full of typos but its a start --Doc (?) 12:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reads very well. I'm glad you've done this. Well done! --Doric Loon 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

cleanup tag on Vergangenheitsbewältigung[edit]

See Talk:Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Feel free to comment further there. Buffyg 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Unionists (Scotland)[edit]

You might want to have a look at this awful article. It is in urgent need of some help. --Doc (?) 23:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Unionists (Scotland)[edit]

It's back - and User:Mais oui! has called your redirect 'vandalism'. I've rebuked him/her on their talk page, but I think we'll need to have the discussion again and pull some other views in. --Doc (?) 21:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me there, Doc. There are some people here on Wiki who are just very difficult to deal with. Mais oui! seems to be very reluctant to see opposition to the independence movement properly represented. But I may of course be wrong to impute an agenda to him, because he doesn't explain his reverts. You are right that we now need a broader consensus. But if we get it, Mais oui! should not be allowed to bully us all. --Doric Loon 23:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tron photo[edit]

I tarted up image:Wfm tron church glasgow.jpg per your suggestion (at the expense of entirely bleaching the sky out). It's called the Tron because, at night, it tranforms into a giant Japanese robot, which stalks the streets of Glasgow, zapping neds with its massive sandstone gun. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

"the Low German / Dutch continuum"[edit]

Hi Doric Loon. I'm trying to give a fresh impulse to the chaos of language variety naming conventions by renaming several German varieties into "XXX German" (in analogy to the "XXX English" scheme which is common for English varieties).

I've stumbled onto a remark of yours at Talk:German language that uncovers the weak spot the naming scheme "XXX (parent language)" has as well: It doesn't work for articles such as Low German which includes not only German varieties, but also independent standard languages.

You won't have the solution either, but noticing your comment (which I then overread being into other things), maybe some interesting thought? However, I wouldn't blame anyone who shuns such desperate problems. -- j. 'mach' wust | 16:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, the terminology is a problem. For one thing, the distinction between a dialect and a language is impossible to pin down, and finding the sensible middle way between listing the lingo of every Bavarian village as a language and at the other extreme calling Yiddish or Dutch forms of German is like walking a tightrope. My tendency would be to say there is one German language (with many high and low dialects), and not to use the phrase "German languages", even in the phrases "High German languages" and "Low German languages" - to be honest I rarely hear those except on Wikipedia. However I would be more comfortable with dividing West Germanic into three: High, Low and Insular West Germanic languages. But that raises the next problem: where to draw divisions. For example, is English a Low WG language, or is Insular to be treated separately? Probably separately. Then what do we make of the term Ingvaeonic (which we use at Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law? The high-low split is not as clear as we like to think either; partly because that is a continuum too (our article High German consonant shift shows that well) and partly because it is very difficult to argue that that one consonant shift devided the language more fundamentally than all the other things that have happened to it: the differences between Low German and English or even between Low German and Dutch are so very much greater than those between Low German and High German, for example. So, given the choice, I would not work with stemma-type tables at all for dialects and closely related languages. Better to think in terms of waves of influence, a bit like the way we do with political thought, or schools of art or literature. (But if you try to remove the classification tables from the Germanic languages pages you will get into an edit war: I'm not sure we would get away with that!) I don't suppose that helps you, though. --Doric Loon 05:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The use of the trias Insular/Low/High Germaniic languages might be feasible. The plurals seem to be justified since all of these embrace more than one language in the sense of Ausbausprache (if we count English creoles). Are these common in English linguistics. For what I know (that is, according to the Metzler Lexikon Sprache), Nordseegermanisch is more common in German linguistics, and it is also mentioned at Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law. This might also appease Frisian fundamentalists. -- j. 'mach' wust | 12:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia[edit]

I've noticed you have worked on an article that is covered by the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia. While a religious resource, there is a great deal of impartial information about historical events, persons and ideas that are covered by the CE. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate incorporation of relevant information from the CE into wikipedia. I would appreciate any help you can offer in the project. Reflex Reaction 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A merge to reduce the permutations of articles[edit]

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Begijnhof, Amsterdam[edit]

Hi Doric, I do not know whether you are still making use of the Begijnhof, Amsterdam article, but if you are, I should like to point out that I have just reverted a few alterations which to me seemed mistaken. But then, I myself may be the one groping towards light. (Aren't we all.) Regards, Bessel Dekker 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, thanks. This still needs a couple of stylistic alterations, but it is becoming a nice article. --Doric Loon 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think your recent alterations make a lot of sense. I am not a historian or an architect myself, and am not completely sure what some of the phrases in the article in my native Dutch mean. -- Bessel Dekker 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Minim" etymology[edit]

Hi,

Please see my comments on Talk:Half note about a remark you added to Half note about the etymology of the term "minim" in music. Got any sources for your suggestion? Lukas 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish, Basque[edit]

Could you please see my question at Talk:Yiddish_language#Basque.3F.3F.3F? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:140px-Hemau.png[edit]

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:140px-Hemau.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesiontalk 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It was taken over from the German wikipedia - I can only assume that they have already dealt with copyright questions. But I am pretty sure they made it themselves, so it is public domain. --Doric Loon 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Assimilation[edit]

Hmmm... the articles you mentioned, [5] [6] [7] [8], are you saying these edits are incorrect? They seem correct to me. There was one mistake which was in germanic spirant law, which I have now corrected. I DO read the article and simply made a careless mistake (which I have no idea how I made in the first place).

evaluation of ish ishwar[edit]

hi. long time no type.

recently, someone has nominated me for an adminship (Requests for adminship/Ish ishwar). one of the questions asks about prior conflicts. i have not had any real conflicts (i dont think), but the most conflictish encounter, i believe, was our discussion over Indo-European ablaut-Ablaut-Apophony. because of this, perhaps you would be interested in participating in the evaluation of my behaviour. if not, that's fine, too. thanks & peace – ishwar  (speak) 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That wasn't a conflict, though. --Doric Loon 06:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

British English Subjunctive[edit]

Alright dude, I've been thinking of doing a drastic overhaul to the article on the Subjunctive (specifically the English section) as I'm not convinced about the whole American/British usage arguments found in it, and generally needs a bit of expansion and a clean-up.

I noticed from its talk page that you felt the same way about some of it, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the article sometime over the next few days to see what you think of the changes that I'm considering. I'll not get round to it before tonight at the earliest so don't be confused if you see no amendments when you visit it. Cheers! Brian 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright Doric, how are you keeping? Have another look at user:brianlacey/sandbox both for general appraisal and also specifically to see where you think an Indo-European Copula connection could be made. I think that after a few more edits it will be ready to be unleashed upon the world! Cheers. Brian 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dutch language[edit]

Could you please take a look at talk:Dutch language. I have a dispute with user:Sandertje about this article. Thanks. Andries 14:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request[edit]

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ablaut[edit]

Just a word of thanks for your large improvements to this article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Orthography[edit]

Hi Doric. I have been looking at the article Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse spelling on the Dutch wiki. A translation was being requested and I am keen to do one. On looking again at the article Dutch Orthography it seems to me that it might be best to merge the two to avoid duplications. This would produce a more substantial, feature sized article. Any problems? Hikitsurisan 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no sense in having two. More work for you, of course, if you are collating as well as translating, but if you are up for it, rock on! --Doric Loon 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your rude behaviour[edit]

Comments like "rv. Stelen has no GW!!" when reverting serves no purpose at all. If you want to scream at people for nothing fine, but not at me understand?! Nearly every Dutch linguistic term has Germanic and not Latin roots, therefore Dutch people, like myself, often experience difficulties with the more international Latin based terms. I thought a change of vowels was meant, and so I changed the verb in which that was more clear.Thank you. Sander 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My dear Sandertje, that remark was certainly not rude, but merely factual. I did not use bold and italics to give the impression of flaming - you have added those. However, I have seen you operate often enough not to be surprised that you expect and respond with confrontation. Grammatischer Wechsel is not a Latin-based term, but there is no shame in not being familiar with it. I trust we have clarity now. --Doric Loon 16:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting two exclamation marks behind a comment is rude. No 'dear sandertje' will help you there Doric Loon.I trust we have clarity now. Sander 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Old English weak verbs[edit]

I notice that you requested Benwing to help out with Old English weak verbs. You may find just what you are looking for at Old English morphology#Weak verbs. --teb728 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that may be useful. --Doric Loon 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bertold von Regensburg[edit]

Hi Doric Loon,

I think it was you who added the section on Bertold of Regensburg to Flat Earth. Do you have a bit more detail on what Bertold said, and ideally a citation. -- I'm afraid I'm succumbing to the historian's vice and going overboard with footnotes (something of a reaction to the undocumented claims I've come across). --SteveMcCluskey 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

History Man[edit]

Thank you so much for your words of encouragement; they are very much appreciated. I am beginning to get very cynical, I am sorry to report, over the whole Wikipedia enterprise. You may be interested to see what I have written on the main Wikipedia talk page (Highest Quality?) You would not believe-or perhaps you would-some of the breathtaking distortions and factual inaccuracies I have come across over the last few weeks in items touching on aspects of Scottish and British history. Perhaps the worst of all was the assertion that Pope Boniface gave Edward I a medal for the massacre of men, women and children at Berwick-upon-Tweed in the sack of 1296. I can recognize nonsense when I see it in areas with which I am familiar; but what about the many areas where I have no prior knowledge? More to the point, what about the school-age children or even students who are absorbing lies and misinformation as fact? I will keep trying, though; at least for a little while longer. Rcpaterson 22:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason why we have a responsibility to try to put these things right. I am a university teacher, and really got involved in Wikipedia when I discoverd that my students are using this as a resource. Some colleagues try to stop them, saying it's not academic enough. That's true, but unrealistic. I think it is better to teach them to use it intelligently, and at the same time to make it as good as I can. Now some of the articles I have worked on are splendid resources for my classes, and I can actively point them to it. --Doric Loon 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regensburg[edit]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this informative piece. I have nothing to add, but I do have a question. Do you know in which parts of Scotland the Regensburg mission of the early seventeenth century operated? It would have been highly dangerous for them to have preached openly in much of the Lowlands; so I assume that it must have been in the more remote parts of Scotland, where people retained some commitment to the old faith. There was an important Franciscan mission to the Western Isles in the 1620s, which made great headway, especially among the Gaelic speaking communities of Clan Donald. I assume some co-ordination must have been at work? Rcpaterson 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Doric, pleas look her to my answer. Hast Du vielleicht auch ein Foto von Max Buchhausers Garten? Greetings Pelz

Prescription[edit]

You're welcome.

The Soviet Writers' Union was the stylistic authority. The grammatical authority was less formal, but that made hardly any difference, since every published author went through the SWU and the SWU was always in love with one dictionary and grammar or another. --VKokielov 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Schami to List of German-language authors![edit]

I love his work; thanks so much for adding his name! Further contributions are welcome, also to the List of German-language poets and List of German-language philosophers. Gruss, Universitytruth 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Historiography encyclopedia/dictionary[edit]

Hi - Stbalbach here from the Dark Ages.. is there an encyclopedia or dictionary that deals with historiography? I see so many articles on Wikipedia with terms that need explanation.. like Hundred Years War recently came up as a question when and where the term originated. I don't know if such a thing exists, but thought you might possibly know if such a thing exists. -- Stbalbach 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebedev[edit]

I was looking through the Mikhail Lebedev page and it seems to be vanity and non-notable to me. First of all, there is hardly any information about him on Google. Then, none of the publications seem to be news-worthy and notable. Finally, the scientist does not have many 1st author publications and seems to be non-important in his field. If you agree with me, can you please help me nominate Mikhail Lebedev for deletion? --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Basque language[edit]

Hooray! Somebody's done it! I've been contemplating that 'absurd sentence' wondering what to do with it for a while. --ColinFine 19:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Germanic Strong and Weak Verbs[edit]

(I posted this as a reply to your comment on my Talk page, but I'm putting it here, too, in case you wouldn't check there.)

I'm glad you approve of my edits. I have added some more comments about the semantic shift of PIE perfect to Gmc preterite. I have thought of contributing to the Germanic strong verb page, but right now it's geared toward the West Germanic languages, and what I would be best able to contribute would involve Gmc and Gothic info that would not fit well into the article's current thrust. I welcome suggestions, though. Nice job with all your contributions! Unsigned comment by User:Dr. Elwin Ransom, 18 Oct 2006

Great, let's think about that together. So far I have almost been the only person to write about strong verbs, and that is why the page is entirely geared to the languages I know. Let's continue this at Talk:Germanic strong verb and see what we can do with it. --Doric Loon 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Split infinitive FAR/C[edit]

Hi there

I wonder whether you're in a position to help to bring this one back to FA standards. Tony 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Aberdeen Grammar School[edit]

Any comments made on the Aberdeen Grammar page were not made by me. As this computer is used by others I can only fathom that other individuals have been creating mischief.

Unsigned comment by User:El Loto, 30 Oct 06.

English Irregular Verb Questions[edit]

Greetings, the Loric Doon!

I'm the Queen of English. Could you take a look at my questions on the talk page for [Wiktionary Irregular Verbs - English] and give me your Doric opinion? Thank you! Dblomgren 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Queen of English. OK, I've made a couple of points there. Tell me if you need any more. --Doric Loon 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

good article, needs armor.[edit]

I like your Place names with English meanings and the reasoning behind it. Its place here may be questionable, but if you can bring it to meet the three major guidelines, WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:V (preferably by WP:CITE) then it should be well protected from deletion. If it ever comes up for WP:AFD please let me know on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 20:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Split infinitive[edit]

The review for this really needs to be closed as it's been up there almost two months. I can't in good faith close it as keep with only remove comments standing. I just thought I'd let you know that a remove is not a comment on your work—you obviously put in some effort and the page is improved. Barring some last minute change, I will close it tomorrow. Marskell 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Clearly there is no consensus for keeping the status, and I don't have a problem with that. --Doric Loon 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image[edit]

An image you uploaded, Image:Wappenhemau.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved again, again[edit]

See Talk:Minister (Christianity). -- roundhouse 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off, I hadn't really been watching there. My thoughts are on that talk page now. --Doric Loon 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This PW chap is getting notorious for unilateral moves. I agree with all your remarks. -- roundhouse 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Britain[edit]

Doric, sorry if you feel my "swift sword" was too swift. Actually, I would have been a lot harsher and redirected the thing to Britain (well, actually, move Great Britain to Britain and redirect Great Britain there, but that's the kind of job would call for a claíomh mór, which I don't have).

In the end, it was Robdurbar's sword that landed the fatal blow. I just moved the previous content to Wikionary after his blade had cut the page down. --sony-youthtalk 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No no, you're doing fine. (The sword metaphor was meant positively - there was pruning to be done!) It's just the encyclopedia/dictionary thing where alarm bells rang: I think a lot of Wikipedians understand the rule as a taboo on discussion of linguistic aspects; the way I see it, Wiktionary has a very rigid, neat, user-friendly format, ideal for presenting basic dictionary info, but anything more discursive doesn't belong there; and what isn't right for Wiktionary must belong in Wikipedia, even if it is a section focussing on linguistic aspects of a topic. But I suspect I don't have to persuade you of that. --Doric Loon 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I agree to a good enxtent but don't think Britain was the best place for that article, even Britain (word) would be better. --sony-youthtalk 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A-mutation[edit]

Thanks for the warning. Unfortunately, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough about the topic to come up with an argument to keep the article. :-( FilipeS 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Prescription[edit]

OK, I think my changes were mostly limited to removing some rather dubious and unsourced claims from the article (e.g. that prescription increases clarity, that written language requires "more conservative" syntax...). I guess the most productive thing to do would be for me to list the parts of the article I object to on the talk page and explain why I object to them. I'll do this later today or tomorrow. Cadr 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's the way to go.--Doric Loon 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dutch spelling[edit]

Hi Doric, see perhaps: Talk:Dutch orthography 152.1.193.137 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question Doric Loon, about the page Germanic strong verb. It says something about the verbal noun being stage 5 or so, but the thought is not carried much further. I have always wondered about the verbal nouns in my own dialect (Dutch) (or is that a language?). There still seems to be a fair bit of systematics left, like bieden -> het bod, schieten -> het schot and interestingly with a 'short' rather than a long o as in the past schoot. Is there any sense in saying more about this?

Not that the verbal nouns are not a bit of a mess as I have tried to show on wikibooks.

I quickly looked at the classes 1,2 and 3 and got this: Class 1: mostly in -ee-? and masculine

bezwijken
bijten - de beet
blijken (-het blijk)
blijven -
drijven - de drift
glijden (-de glij(ding))
grijpen - de greep
hijsen -
kijken - (de kijk)
knijpen - de kneep
krijgen (-de krijg?)
lijden - het leed
lijken
prijzen
rijden - de rit
rijzen
schijnen - (de schijn)
schrijden - de schrede
schrijven - het schrift
slijpen
slijten (-- sleets?)
smijten - de smeet
spijten (- de spijt)
splijten - de spleet
stijgen
strijden - (de strijd)
strijken
verdwijnen (verdwijning)
vermijden
wijken
wijzen - de wijze
wrijven de wreef?
zwijgen.


2

neuters with o, feminines with -eu-?

bieden - het bod
genieten - het genot
gieten - de goot
kiezen - de keuze
liegen - de leugen
schieten - het schot
verliezen (- het verlies)
vliegen - de vlucht
vriezen - de vorst
with ū-present
buigen - de boog
druipen - de drop
duiken
fluiten
kruipen
ruiken - de reuk
schuilen
schuiven (-de schoof?)
snuiven
spuiten (-de spuit)
stuiven
zuigen (-het zog?)
zuipen.

Class 3 masculines in -a-?

beginnen - het begin
binden - de band
blinken
dringen - de drang
drinken - de drank
dwingen - de dwang
glimmen
klimmen - de klim
klinken - de klank
schrikken - de schrik
springen -de sprong
stinken - de stank
verzinnen
vinden - de vondst
winnen (- het gewin?)
wringen (adj.: wrang?)
zingen - de zang
zinken.
oiginal 3b
bergen - de borg
gelden
schelden
smelten
vechten
zwellen.
3b by analogy (original class in brackets)
schenken
scheren (4) (schering)
treffen(4)
trekken (6) (-de trek)
wegen - de waag
zenden (3a)
zwemmen (3a).
3b with preterite in ie
bederven - het bederf
helpen - de hulp
sterven
werpen - de worp
zwerven.

(obviously pretty corrupt..)

nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Now that is quite interesting. First of all, though, when the Germanic strong verb article talks about the verbal noun, it means the original PIE verb-form which became the Germanic past participle. What you are asking about is nouns related to verbs, which is a different thing. But yes, these nouns can be a vowel-shift away from the verbs. There are several possible causes of this, but the most obvious one is Indo-European ablaut. As you have noticed, ablaut should create a set of nouns which bear a regular relation to the verbs, and when viewed on a class-by-class basis you would expect to find an identical vowel in all the nouns related to a particular class. I've never looked into the Dutch forms, so I don't want to make any pronouncements, but I would expect that the irregularities and anomalies in your pattern will be explained in one of two ways. One possibility is that a random change has taken place in a particular word, which can happen at any time, though the fact that the Dutch strong verbs have remained relatively regular compared with English or even German might indicate that the language is fairly conservative at this point, which may mean that random irregularities will be seldom. (But that's only a guess - there is no real reason why the nouns should have stayed as regular as the verbs!) The other possibility is that the nouns which don't fit the pattern may be more recent. If they do not date back to PIE as separate words, but have instead been derived from the verbs later in the history of Germanic, they could have been formed in quite different ways. Possibly in some cases the irregularity will not be explicable at all; but linguists can usually have at least a tentative guess at a solution to most problems in Germanic language history. At any rate, I find that the pattern is usually more interesting than the exception. It would be interesting to write this up in a Wiki article, but do try to find scholarly literature rather than just noting your own observations. At any rate, Germanic verbs is not the place for it. user:Angr is usually pretty well up on such things, so do ask his opinion before you do anything too innovative. Dutch is a cool language, though, and is often a truer representation of Germanic origins than English or German, so we should look at it more often. (BTW, linguists are usually not too bothered about the distinction between a language and a dialect, but in popular usage Dutch is certainly a language.) Where have you worked on Wikibooks? --Doric Loon 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words Doric. I am no liguist and would rather leave such things to the pro's. I had no intention to write here. I seldom visit en.wiki. I just never saw a discussion of the one-vowel-away nouns and am curious about my own netherly tongue. You are right I had missed the bit about the participle. On wikibooks I have mostly worked on the Dutch book, where I happily conjectured about a few things, like where our gender system is going in relation to pronominal adverbs I'd value your comments. BTW any idea wherefrom the hereins and wheretofores came? They seem to have acquired a second wind in Dutch because of the grammatical shifts we have been through since the 'golden' age.

..is often a truer representation of Germanic origins than English or German.. ouch. Ich hoffe unsere lieben Nachbarn lesen das nicht. ;-)

cheers

Iarlagab/Jcwf

User:AlexNewArtBot[edit]

Hi Doric Loon, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: incorrect edit of Germanic strong verb[edit]

Apologies for that mistake and thanks for pointing it out to me. I've added Old English language tags to those words in the article so that 'writen' will not be picked up as a typo by AWB. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Umlaut[edit]

Since you are a Scotchman (as I recall you don't like being called Scotch) :-), we're probably related way back - say 30 generations or so (I'm Icelandic). I have to admit that I did not pay enough attention to the disambiguation character of the page, but I still have reservations. I also freely admit that I was unduly harsh (a national trait - arrogance is too). But I still feel that the Umlaut (disambiguation) page could do with a bit of revision. Germanic Umlaut is something I know a bit about, and as the subject is presented on the page, it is more confusing than needs be. I'll voice my comments on the talk page next weekend as promised. Wikipedia has, alas, taken this opportunity to have technical problems, and it is bedtime for me now, so I'll just wait for an opportunity to send this, and then I'm headed for the sack. OK, Wikipedia just came online again. Linguisticically Umlaut only refers to the Germanic phenomenon. But seeing the page again, I see I might have jumped the gun. But I have never heard of the Celtic changes called anything but mutations. The A-Umlaut in particular is a specific Germanic development, present in every living Germanic language. Anyway, I may just be rambling, so your talk page might be a better place to talk things over instead of exposing my ignorance to a wider public (that last sentence is also an example of a national trait). :-) Anyway, see you and cheers Io 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the disambig page needs tidied up. I personally would agree with you that the word Umlaut should be reserved for the Germanic phenomenon. That's why originally the Umlaut discussed precisely that. But others wanted to use the word in much wider ways, and the page was in danger of becoming a mish-mash of different things, and that was when I moved the original article to Germanic Umlaut and made this a disambig. The Celtic phenomenon can indeed be called other things, and although I wrote part of that article, I think it is not a good article. Do try to improve on it. --Doric Loon 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Tell my about it! I once rewrote an article and then put it up for deletion. Remarkably enough, the voting turned out to be a tie, so there it stands. :-) Cheers Io 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge missions[edit]

Hi. I had misled you by directing the discussion to the wrong place (as became clear when the merge-tags were restored). I thus moved my comment and yours to the proper place, at the Hiberno-Scottish mission talk page. Sorry for that. — SomeHuman 07 Jul2007 16:25 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big deal, because if the merge goes ahead we can still unmerge later if it e-merge-s that I am right. But I think we have better scope to develop both things separately. Then again, I am not particularly planning on working on this... Best, --Doric Loon 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Saltire Society[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Saltire Society, by Betacommand (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Saltire Society seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Saltire Society, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirk as a placename element[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Kirk as a placename element, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. hbdragon88 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dark Ages[edit]

Hello, I just want to let you know I've restored the {{fact}} tags and commented on it in the talk page. Reinistalk 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Shawlands Academy[edit]

Hello! Yes, I did indeed create it. Didn't attend it, went to the far superior Holyrood. :P Stay near Shawlands but and was bored so decided to create the page. The Holyrood page has had some interesting libellous edits, have a wee swatch thro the history if you're ever bored. Hehe. Regards,GiollaUidir 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Brian O Murdoch[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Brian O Murdoch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. He has multiple books published, but it seems the only relevant Google hits are to sales or catalog listings of the books. They seem to be rather obscure. I have very serious doubts that you will be able to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Medieval popular Bible[edit]

Circle-style-warning.svg

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Medieval popular Bible, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Grammar Nazi[edit]

Hi. You were one of the editors discussing whether or not the article grammar nazi would qualify for a move to Wikitionary or its deletion. I made a proposal in the article's discussion if you're interested in participating. --76.214.226.199 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Place names with English meanings[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Place names with English meanings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names with English meanings. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Aberdeen Grammar School[edit]

Hey, just thought I'd tell you that I deleted the image and the paragraph it was in because I couldn't find a source for the information. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk. 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, Doric Loon! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotch[edit]

I don't suppose an IP check would show you were responsible for the earlier contribution would it? Anyway, we have something called a talk page if you want to discuss it. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MCS-Logo.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:MCS-Logo.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scots-Yiddish[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Scots-Yiddish, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots-Yiddish. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  Ravenswing  00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image at Central pulpit[edit]

Hey there...

The issue with the image Image:StAndrews-Rome2.jpg is that when it was uploaded several years ago, the requirement to add a specific license was not as strict as it is now. At the time, it was assumed that any image uploaded was being licensed under the GFDL (as all text contributions are) unless otherwise noted. Subsequently, sometime in late 2005 I believe, there needed to be an expressed free license rather then the other way around. Given all the images that did not have great, or any, licenses that were in use, the {{GFDL-presumed}} tag was created. And now that the original user is no longer active here, it is not possible to confirm his intention with the image.

These tagged images are not at risk of deletion solely for the fact of the presumed licnese, so no worries about the image disapearing at this point. The issue with using a presumed licnesed image, is an article with such an image may not be picked up for inclusion in any future stable release of WP articles or at minimum, would not include the image.

So, if nothing is done, there will be little, if any, repercussions; a replacement would make the encyclopedia that much more free. I hope I answered your questions and concerns, but please if not, just drop me another note on my talk page. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • If your son is fine with the having the image licnesed under the GFDL licnese (as all his text already is) then have him log in and replace the {{GFDL-presumed}} tag with {{GFDL-self}} on the image page itself. If you are getting him to do that, have him do it for both images that he has uploaded, Image:StAndrews-Rome1.jpg and Image:StAndrews-Rome2.jpg. I understand your comments about people freaking out about the licenings. Copyright in the first place is a confusing thing, and WP has very tight limitations on top of that because of its mission -- to create a free encyclopedic that anyone can use. Many people here don't understand some of the ramifications. Under some licensing, I could take the person's photos and make money off them, create a whole coffee table book and not have to pay anyone any fees. People are releasing their creative rights for my potential profit.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages[edit]

Could you weigh in (again) at Dark Ages? I've constructed a lead paragraph that I hoped would clarify the scope of the article and satisfy everyone, but it has met with some resistance.--Cúchullain t/c 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clì Gàidhlig[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Clì Gàidhlig, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clì Gàidhlig. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Pyrrhus16 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Traffic paddle[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Traffic paddle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 16:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration of Hebrew[edit]

Hi, could you refer me to your source for the transliteration key you used in Waw-consecutive? Thanks, Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That was Angr. I did a preliminary version with a very makeshift transliteration, but he corrected to a more academic one. So you'd have to ask him, I'm afraid. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Tag Questions[edit]

Hey. Sorry if this is a bit after you posted, I've just finally merged my accounts and realised I had mail here. I'm not really sure about whether 'on can be considered an auxiliary verb - it's usually followed by the inflected form of the verb, and so is probably more of a particle. YngNghymru (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

English grammar[edit]

As a frequent (>20 edits) contributor to English verbs, would you like to weigh in at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see my last post in the section Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting. I've created a stub for the history page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Academic job market[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Academic job market, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.    7   talk Δ |   00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

English Verb - rewriting[edit]

Hi Doric Loon.

I posted a few comments on your 'English Verb' article(s), and then realised that I was rather arrogantly proposing rewrites (or even replacements with articles by me!) to somebody who (a) clearly knew what he was talking about and (b) was a far more experienced Wikipedian than I. So, I thought I would get in touch with you more directly than via a general discussion page.

In my opinion (for what little that may be worth) your presentation of the English verb is very traditional. That in itself is not a negative criticism, but I feel that an encyclopaedia (from the spelling of that word you can see that I am also, in some ways, a traditionalist - and British to boot) should (a) at least acknowledge the existence of current thoughts, (b) cite some modern grammarians and (c) give a broader picture.

In my own work on the English verb, the heart of which is unusable on Wikipedia because it approaches original research, I have learnt a lot from, among others, Douglas Biber et al, Marianne Celce--Murcia & Diane Larsen-Freeman, Sylvia Chalker, R A Close, Renaat Declerck, Michael Lewis, Martin Parrott, George Yule, Randolph Quirk et al, etc, and even such old-timers as Hornby, Jespersen, Kruisinga, Onions, Palmer, Poutsma, Sweet, etc. I feel quite strongly that some of their views have a place in an article on 'The English Verb'.

My original idea was to rewrite the whole article and then simply put it on as a replacement for yours (forgive the audacity of a novice Wikipedian). Now I have abandoned that presumption. However, I still feel that I have something to offer that could enhance the article. How would you feel about a private discussion? I would be happy to submit my rewrites to you for you comments before presenting them even on the discussion page.

I look forward to hearing from you at some time.

Best wishes

--gramorak (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Gramorak, well I am not propriatorial about the article, so if you have contributions to make, that is great. If you really want to do a complete rewrite of a page which is already quite well developed, it is a good idea to do it on a mirror page on your own userspace and then invite comments. The present representation is not THAT traditional - for example, that rather neat table of three tenses by four aspects supported by the use of modern terms like "present perfect" to suggest that this tense is actually a perfective aspect of the present, does represent advances in thinking in the last twenty years. What I would accept, though, is that the overall presentation draws heavily on the language and representation of TEFL. I think this is not a bad thing, but there are other perspectives too. Please tell me more about what you think is missing. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Split infinitive[edit]

My feeling was that the section was not taking sides on whether split infinitives are acceptable in English, but rather the statement "certainly, it is clear that dislike of the split infinitive does not originate from Latin" is perhaps too strong and takes sides specifically with regard to the argument from classical language. It's a strong rejection of a widely held, if probably false, view. It's hard to know to how far wikipedia should take its neutrality, but perhaps that paragraph should accommodate the view that although the argument from Latin did not motivate the original prohibition, it may be a psychological motivation of some who support the prohibition now.

I'll give rewording it a go, but I don't really like messing too much with good, well written articles. Alboran (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Graeme Dunnottar 2009.JPG[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Graeme Dunnottar 2009.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright statement has now been provided. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zarfat[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Zarfat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No improvement over a definition in over a week. Not seeing how this will meet guidelines for inclusion.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Doric Loon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,635 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Brian O. Murdoch - Find sources: "Brian O. Murdoch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ain't and amn't[edit]

You had offered an opinion about the ain't and contractions of am not articles. Content was moved back into Ain't and I finessed this by renaming the article Ain't and amn't. I do think that the encyclopaedia is better served by a single article rather than multiple articles, but since amn't is not a form of ain't I don' t think that Ain't alone is the right article title. There is ongoing discussion on the Talk page, if you care to look in on it. -- Evertype· 08:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bolding other peoples' comments[edit]

I suppose highlighting sections of other peoples' remarks can be regarded as a form of change, and maybe I was tacking a bit too close to the editorial wind in doing so - but I thought the point being made in all these remarks is worthy of emphasis to all editors of the article "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the same problem keeps cropping up again and again in that particular article and others generally. It is a well known phrase that is seen by many and by highlighting this common mistake it makes a useful general reminder, I hope. Cheers Provocateur (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't a big deal. The point you were making was absolutely right. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Create page request[edit]

Doric, request for creation of page: Halloween (poem 1785) ...of the bard of Scotland Robert Burns. Read it a few times today (allied with the translations)... and with your grasp of the Scottish dialect you would be well equipped to give it a write up.--KiwiJeff (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know Burns had written such a poem, but if you give me a link, I will look at it. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, http://www.bbc.co.uk/robertburns/works/halloween/ ..while here analysis/translation for the passages Halloween. I can help with digging for any sources and such.--KiwiJeff (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Academic Chronicle[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Academic Chronicle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Falcon8765 (TALK) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a source stating what you added into the article, I'd be happy to remove the tag, though you are free to do so as well. Falcon8765 (TALK) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

your hebrew request[edit]

I'm very sorry to be responding so late. I left for a month-long trip to SE Asia at the end of December and just got back a few days ago, and didn't log on to WP while away. Are you still struggling with issues getting the text looking right? It looks like you might have resolved some of the problems. If not please let me know what still needs fixing and I'll be glad to help as best I can. Benwing (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Benwing. Actually, we have more or less sorted it. The only thing still worth looking at is that there is a much nicer Hebrew font (which I used at waw-consecutive which I can't seem to make work here, because the coding for the font clashes with the coding for the table. Maybe we have to settle for what we've got, but you have more experience, so do look at it. Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Alas, I've had little experience on getting specialized fonts working in tables (or in general), so I'm not really sure what to suggest. I did try just putting {{hebrew|}} around parts of the relevant text in Dukus Horant in the table and it seemed to work. (To the extent I could get the stuff edited at all, that is ... RTL handling in Firefox on the Mac must be broken or something. The text kept getting moved around to places other than where I tried to put it; enormously frustrating.) Benwing (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EMC cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EMC cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD for Medieval Chronicle Society[edit]

Hi, Doric. Sorry about the delay, I had gone to Disneyland. =^_^=

To not, the discussion has been closed for no consensus, so this comes a bit tardy, but perhaps there is room for improvement. My advice would be to make doubly sure that the language of the article is not at all promotional, and definitely to demonstrate notability. The link is in the discussion, I think.

This said, the keep arguments were not terribly convincing - what I saw seemed to say "prove it isn't notable". Though, I did like the suggestion to basically ignore the rules, and I am willing to do that for a time, contingent upon the resources we need are added - or if somehow notability can be demonstrated.

Let me know if you have other questions.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dark Ages[edit]

Thanks for your interest in Dark Ages. I am no expert in the matter, but the idea of a warning is a good idea. Especially so since so many pages were linked to the disambiguation page or Dark Ages when they probably intended another article. What I suggest you do is add some more explanatory text to the top of Dark Ages to achieve your intention of the alert to the variety of meanings and dispute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

CSB Linguistics list[edit]

I've been working on updating the task list for the Countering Systemic Bias project. I noticed you'd contributed to the Linguistics section of the task list. Would you be willing to take a look at the articles and see how they're faring & see if any have improved? I've been working my way through the other sections and updating the notes or moving articles that have progressed but I'm really at a loss when it comes to the linguistics articles. Thanks. Cloveapple (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Indo-European copula - Gaelic languages[edit]

Hi Doric Loon. I have recently been editing the Indo-European copula page. You included a sentence stating that the copula in Gaelic languages can be interpreted as part of the verb bí. As an Irish speaker, I know that, at least in the case of the modern Irish language, this is incorrect. Would it be possible to provide me with a scan of or link to the relevant pages of the source please if convenient? I am concerned that your contribution only applies to Scottish Gaelic. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rryswny (talkcontribs) 22:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have scanning facilities here but I you may well be right that it only applies to Scottish Gaelic. It is really a question of analysis. These verbs are suppletive anyway, so you don't expect different parts of the same verb to be etymologically related; so if is and tha have a complimentary distribution and together do what in other languages would be done by one verb, it's hard to see a reason why they cannot be conceived as aspectually related parts of a single paradigm. It seems to me that that is true of Irish too, but as far as I know it is only in Scots Gaelic that some (a minority of) analysts look at it this way. I think when you say it is incorrect in Irish, you mean that this is not the accepted analysis, and not that it is an impossible analysis. But I don't speak Irish, so if you have a reason why it is completely impossible to conceptualize it this way, I would be interested to learn about it.--Doric Loon (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your quick response. While it is certainly not the accepted analysis in Irish, I think it may be impossible also. The best reason I can put forward is that a different set of personal pronouns are used with the Irish copula.Rryswny (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a minority view in Scotland, too, so edit as you see fit. Maybe move the whole thing into the footnote and just say that this author has suggested this analysis for Scots Gaelic. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I did that just now.Rryswny (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish Gaelic task force needs you![edit]

Flag of Scotland.svg Your participation in the Scottish Gaelic task force which is part of Wikiproject Scotland would be greatly appreciated.
If you are interested, please visit the task force's page in order to see how you would be able to participate.

JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 22:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

agree to the merge[edit]

I have enlarged the article Jean de Venette and would agree to the merge of the Chronicle article with Jean de Venette. The opposite would not be practicable because it mentions not only his Chronicle but his life and motivation. Opinion? Can we merge it or do we need more approval. Does not seem to be much action on either except our recent contributions. Mugginsx (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the merge - go ahead. The suggestion to merge has been up there for ten months and nobody has objected. Besides, there really is no call for separate articles on the author and on the work.
However, there is a different problem here. There were two different Jean de Venettes, one who wrote a chronicle and the other who wrote a romance, and the main article which you have worked on seems to muddle them. Let me cite the first paragraph of Régis Rech, "Jean de Venette", in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, Brill 2010, p. 912.
ca 1307-70. France. Author of a Latin history of the mid-14th century. A Carmelite from the village of Venette near Compiègne who usually lived in Paris in the Carmelite house of the Place Maubert. He spent two years (1354 and 1386) in Reims. Almost certainly a different person from the Carmelite Jean de Venette who in 1357 wrote a huge poem of some 40,000 lines in French entitled Les Trois Maries.
Sorry if that throws a spanner in your works. I notice he only says "almost certainly" so you would be at liberty to deal with them in the same article and just note the alernative view, but Rech is pretty recent and if he represents latest scholarship then maybe you do need two articles. Right now I don't have more time to work on this, so I'll leave it for you to decide what to do. Good luck. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not take offence, I'll take into account everything you said, but my immediate thought is, I am sorry I asked. Face-grin.svg. I tried to move it and was unsuccessful. I do have the 1953 book and will continue to read it and follow the sources it claims as well and the others. This looks like it is not going to be as easy as I thought. Mugginsx (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I can understand that, indeed. I find it a very common situation with anything scholarly - I think there is a nice little job I can just do quickly and a box of worms opens up! Do read the rest of the Rech article. I will mail it to you using the e-mail account you have registered on Wiki. Tell me if you can't get it that way. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I received the information and will read it and thank you for sharing your knowledge with me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Two different Jean de Venettes[edit]

I must tell you that after reading and re-reading all of the information you sent to me (the manuscripts are breathtaking by the way) that I simply cannot believe Regis Rech that there were two different Jean de Venettes who:

both have the same name (even taking into account the way names were created in medieval times);
both born in Venette;
both monks or friars;
both Carmelite monks or friars;
both were literate at a time when not all monks were literate (since de Venette himself aspires to make his fellow monks literate);
both were referred to as fillons or chroniclers;
both used the Latin of a peasant - see Birdsall, et al., preface to chronicle p.2, "His Latin is the Latin of a French peasant must often be turned back to French in which he is thinking ..." and also Régis Rech observations: "The style is sober and clipped with no digressions, but contains many Gallicisms"; - no matter the language, it is peasant in tone.
both lived in the same century;
both lived in the same country in that century;
and both lived at the same time in that century.

It simply defies logic. With all due respect to the fact that you have expressed that you do not work on French manuscripts, I wonder if you would consider these facts above, and add to it the fact that there is no proof to the claim presented by Regis Rech, and agree with me that they could not have been two different persons. It seems to me that the odds would be astronomical for that proposition. The only other question left is that did the same man write the poem" "The Three Marys (or Maries) and I say, why not? Since according to your scholarly source, the poem is still unpublished, http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F , I do not know how to resolve that question, and do not see that Rech does either. Until someone can, it seems to me, it is pure speculation.

I am therefore not going to attempt to put that phrase in that "they were almost certainly two different persons". If you decide to go forward with it, I will, of course, not object and will defer to your education and judgment on these matters. But Dr., surely you know that there is enough disagreement on medieval subjects that if all were presented in every article, they would make that article in Wiki look like a compilation of contradictions and, would make it unreadable. Therefore, with that in mind, and also due to the fact that no proof is presented that I can see to the claim, and the fact that there is comparatively little known about this man to make such a conclusion, I remain skeptical they were two different persons. With respect, Mugginsx (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If I am incorrect as to any or all of my conclusions, please do not hesitate to tell me. I do want to learn all that I can of Jean de Venette. Thankyou. Mugginsx (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, you present the argument so convincingly that I think you may well be right. Whenever there is a scholarly controversy like this, we all have to work out for ourselves what we think of it, so don't be shy about standing by your conclusions. Since Rech is so recent, I still sort of think the article should say somewhere (if only in a footnote) that the two-Jeans theory is held by some scholars. But Rech doesn't give reasons, so one is thrown back on older scholarship for an explanation. But I certainly would not support leading with the assumption of two authors: one makes sense. It reminds me a little of Rudolf von Ems, a great all-rounder in courtly literature, who also wrote a chronicle. Keep up the good work - the article is looking better by the day. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You are extremely kind to say so. I will do my best. Thank you so much. I have added a Note to the section on The Three Maries, or Marys as you suggested. Please feel free to re-word or re-place, if you so choose. Mugginsx (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Czechia (single name of the Czech Rep.)[edit]

Hello Doric! I appreciate your reasonable compromise in this difficult (and difficultly understandable) matter. Could you once more visit this discussion and to react on me, please? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I would support this in a poll. I'm not sure a poll would have much chance of success, though, counting the pros and cons further up the discussion. But I am (almost) always for tolerance. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thank you[edit]

II do not know if you are aware of this but what you sent me http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F updates itself and I am constantly able to see new and wonderful things. Thank you for being so gracious to an amateur editor. Mugginsx (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
for your scholarly advice to a non-scholar Mugginsx (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


and this is also for you:

Rosetta Barnstar.png The Rosetta Barnstar
for your extraordinary linguistics abilities Mugginsx (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
WOW! I've never had barnstars before. Thank you SO much. You know, that actually means a lot to me. But hey, you were the one doing all the work there. Keep it up! You're doing just fine. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:140px-Hemau.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:140px-Hemau.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's no longer required. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Beefcake[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at Kubigula's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Academic job market[edit]

The passage you added sure looked like advertising for the Unijobs websites to me. Am I missing something? NawlinWiki (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I didn't exactly add the material - I just reverted the block deletion of this and a large amount of other important material. The way in which this market operates in different countries is of great interest to many people, and it is useful to keep the information in one place. Of course if you think that spam has been added, I have no objection to you going through in a more careful way and removing that. I'm not really familiar with unijobs websites, so I can't comment on that. If in some countries the job market substantially operates through these sites, it is worth mentioning them. If they have been given undue prominence, that's a different matter. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks you for sharing your vast knowledge on the article talk page and thank you for the compliment. I am trying to follow your scholarly advice as well as that of another scholarly editor who has adopted me. I am indeed fortunate. I will try to implement the changes you suggested, many of which I put in as a result of your prior advice but was recently reverted by other editors. Mugginsx (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I don't want to get involved in a dispute there, unless you ask me to, because I haven't been following all the ins and outs, but the article head now gives a completely wrong impression of the name situation. So be bold, insist on what you know to be right, you have after all spent a lot of time researching this guy. If you need me to weigh in, I will do so. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have changed it and one editor is now demanding to know where to find the definition of fillon despite the fact that I have given it to him name, chapter and verse and the reference given there on two occasions. I will try not to bother you with it and I do appreciate your help. Mugginsx (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jean de Venette[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at talk:Jean de Venette.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doric an administrator on Jean de Venette Talk Page has recently asked for information on whether fillon is a definition or part of Jean's name. Would you care to weight in? I have gone as far as I can. Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi, thanks for sending on the Rechs piece, appreciated. And thanks for weighing in too. Nice also to have met you - some of the work I do is in areas you specialize in, so might hit you up again in the future sometime. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland[edit]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hagneby Abbey[edit]

Greetings. I see you created Hagneby Abbey. I have put a merge proposal in to redirect it to the existing Hagnaby Abbey, which is the same place with the more conventional spelling. See the examples on the talk page under the merge proposals--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Tron Church[edit]

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 The Tron Church requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Moswento talky 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

High German consonant shift reversion[edit]

Hey -- indeed I screwed up in glossing selig as "noble" instead of "blessed". Somehow I had Old English ēadig in mind. But the point about -ig /-iç/ is important because it is pronounced with a fricative in standard German, unlike the other examples. Look in a German or German-English dictionary and you'll see Tag indicated as /tak/, Sieg as /ziːk/, but selig as /zeːlɪç/. This is a special case in standard German. Note zwanzig /tsvantsɪç/, zwanzigste /tsvantsɪçstǝ/, but zwanziger /tsvantsɪgʌ/. Pronouncing this ending /ɪk/ is considered incorrect/substandard. Benwing (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example:

[9]

Benwing (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benwing. You are certainly right about the pronunciations in modern German. I'm not convinced, though, that this isn't just an effect of terminal devoicing in an unstressed syllable. Unless you have a source for the origin of it, I'm nost sure it is helpful to put it into an article which is not actually about modern German philology. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean this isn't just an effect of terminal devoicing? This has to be a special-case rule one way or another in German grammar. Terminal devoicing would normally lead to the sound of /k/; in general, cross-linguistically there's no special-casing of /ig/ in terminal devoicing.
The problem is that the text as-is is inaccurate in that it implies that final [ç] is a non-standard regional pronunciation, but this isn't true in the case I noted above. Either we need to add my text or delete the whole section about pronouncing terminal devoiced /g/ as a fricative. Benwing (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Personally I would delete the whole paragraph, because the link between the early consonant shift and the modern situation has not really been made in the cited literature. Since terminal devoicing also plays into the thing, it all seems to fuzzy just to assume a connection. But if you have better information, then put it in. The main thing from my point of view is to reduce the temptation to add more and more detail of minor features of the modern language which have less and less to do with the point of the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've gone ahead and put the text back. I think it's somewhat relevant because it refers to cases in the modern language or dialects where the hardening of voiced fricatives is incomplete, which is historically related to the stage-2 hardening of voiced fricatives. It's possible that the reason it only affects final -ig has some relation to either ich-laut vs. ach-laut or terminal devoicing, or it's possible it's a borrowing from low-german dialects; the exact reason isn't so relevant but the fact that there is an apparent failure of fricative hardening *is* relevant in that it's one of the various exceptional outputs of the HG sound shift in the modern language. I don't see a problem in covering some consonantal changes that occurred further on in Middle or Modern High German, because many of them are continuing the same drift that began with the HG sound shift. (E.g. the change w > b after l or r, cf. English "yellow" (OE gealw-), German Gelbe.) Benwing (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Saltire Society[edit]

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 Saltire Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.saltiresociety.org.uk/become-a-member/why-join/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Theroadislong (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Old English Adjectives as substantives[edit]

I'm looking for an expert opinion on the following: It's claimed that in OE all adjectives were completely free to occur as substantives. Is this overstating things? For example, would an adjective like fæġen (fain) occur as a substantive? Thanks for you help!--Brett (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that is way out of my field. Try User:Angr. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McDuff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macduff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

When a name occurs in two different spellings, it is useful to cross-reference between the two disambiguation pages. So that was deliberate. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)