User talk:James343e

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, James343e, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

If you want to expand your arguments regarding the changes to language, I recommend using the talkpage. Edit summaries are good for making uncontroversial edits, but not for extended discussions. Please see WP:REVTALK for an explanation.

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation[edit]

Please note that you have already violated the so-called three-revert rule. This is a rule to avoid edit wars and those who break it risk being temporarily blocked. Please accept the offer engage in discussion at talk:language instead of continuing to revert other editors.

Peter Isotalo 21:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

James343e, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi James343e! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion in Language[edit]

I was a little surprised at your unexplained reversion of my edit to the lead of this article, as I am the Good Article reviewer and am working on the basis of the overall effect of the article which I am assessing to help bring it safely through.

I note also that you have already been warned about the 3RR rule for edit-warring on the same article, so you should be aware that discussion is the required alternative.

Could you possibly explain why you believe your edit is an improvement to the article text? As you know, the lead text is supposed to reflect the main body of the article, and in my judgement as a reviewer this first sentence did exactly that. I do not understand why language should be regarded as a tendency; its description as a human capacity (something that we humans are capable of doing) appears to me to be exactly correct. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Human beings have the capacity to acquire written language. However, anybody defines written language as "the human capacity for acquiring writing systems". All the best, James343e. 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, since we agree on 'capacity', I assume we can revert the text to that effect. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The article "Language" is based on spoken language. Human beings have the capacity to acquire and use both written and spoken language, so the definition "language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication" is problematic. If we accept this definition, then language cannot be characterized as an instinct or mental organ. We agree that there is no such thing as an instinct or mental organ for written language (a cultural system of communication), so I assume we can revert the text. Thank you. James343e. 10 September 2014 (UTC).

No, that isn't on. You have broken the WP:3RR rule. Please revert your change immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't broken the WP:3RR rule. According to this rule "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". I only have performed three reverts on a single page, not more than three. James343e Chap (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

3RR is a way to allow for preventive blocks to nip certain disputes in the bud. Editing so that you stay just below the minimum of four edits in 24 hours to avoid immediate block is considered to be a way of gaming the system.
Btw, language covers written language. I suggest reading through the entire article before getting too opinionated about the lead.
Peter Isotalo 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleting discussion[edit]

Regarding your removal of discussion regarding language: the general rule at Wikipedia is that discussion directly related to article issues should be left for posterity (see WP:TALK for guidelines). The only reason to remove posts would be personal attacks, off-topic discussion and the likes. You have much more freedom in removing discussion on your personal talkpage.

I don't see anything particularly bad or negative about the discussion you removed, btw. It doesn't reflect poorly on you or anything like that. You stated your case, and I and two other users disagreed; consensus was not for your changes. This happens all the time. There have been discussions about the wording of the lead before, so keeping discussions might avoid having to repeat the same arguments over and over.

Peter Isotalo 08:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Language, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for you to remove these discussions? Do you feel something's amiss? Maybe there's been some miscommunication. I just think it would be unfortunate if you got blocked for keeping up the deletions.
Peter Isotalo 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Language deprivation experiments may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • . Analyzing Cultures: An Introduction and Handbook. Indiana: Indiana University Press, p. 138. [http://books.google.es/books/about/Analyzing_Cultures.html?id=KIzshlXCcogC&redir_esc=y</ref><
  • /ref><ref>McCulloch, Gretchen (2014). What Happens if a Child Is Never Exposed to Language? [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/16/children_not_exposed_to_language_nicaraguan_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)