Hi, Garik! I'm a writer for Jezebel.com; I'm working on an article about the people that edit wikipedia articles about sex, and I'd love to ask you a few questions. If interested, will you please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal beu (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly thanks for the work over at Talk:Homosexuality. Secondly, do you have any input or suggestions for my current article (in progress) at User:Jenova20/List of suggested causes of homosexuality? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'll take a look at it when I have time and see if I have anything to add. It's a good idea for an article. garik (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with the first me! I don't think it needs a hyphen either, but then I saw via Google Books that it sometimes/often does have one in published texts. Still, it looks better without one, but I'm leery of edit wars these days. Glad you took my original lead. Moncrief (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Any other advice welcomed: I think the Wiki system is really superb -- but on a couple of sections where I happen to know about the subject I've run into posts which are basically olde wives tales. So I'd like my inserts and stuff to be useful, in good form, and of course correctly formatted so that editors can find them and do their thing.
On the history of the Internet, for instance, a great deal of what is known out there is just confectionery dreamed up by the PR department of MCI while Vint Cerf was a Vice President there. Vint was in fact one of the very big players: his development of TCP/IP and the background machinery to make it work was one of the major steps in making the whole thing useable by normal human beings as opposed to obsessive tekkies. The PR stories that go around, however, are embarassing to him and untrue to history, which is a damn shame.
Thanks again, and
My father knew ....
Inaccuracies in Bertrand Russell article
Let's be clear about two indisputable facts: (i) 'Meirionnydd' is the recognised name of the county geographically, electorally and historically. Whoever thinks that Meirionethshire is acceptable needs a history lesson. Secondly, Trellech is in Wales according to Wikipedia, if anyone has a problem with that they need to attempt to challenge that page, but it seems no-one has. To refer to someone born in Wales as Welsh is factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draig1925 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please discuss this at the article talk page; I've replied to your post there. garik (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The school of thought that cognitive linguists follow is functionalism. CL is parallel to historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, and so on. It can be seen as simultaneous to psycholinguistics, perhaps. But to call CL a school of thought would be inaccurate. Just as psycholinguistics follows the formalistic school of thought, CL follows the functionalist one. And CL is practical work and not just a theory, so it can't merely be a "school of thought". This is just like how you can't call sociolinguistics a school of thought either: it's a proper sub-field. There are people who work as cognitive linguists and as historical linguists and as sociolinguists. But formalism and functionalism (and generativism) are only theories/approaches, so they are simply schools of thought. MrsCaptcha (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)