User talk:LjL

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

I will reply on this page if you leave me a message. You may want to watchlist it.

click here to leave a new message.


HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to some Hong Kong-related articles. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 09:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Most verbs are regular by definition, aren't they?[edit]

No, not by any definition of regularity.

"Regular" when applied to verb forms doesn't mean what you think, apparently.

A "regular" verb is one that follows a fixed inflection pattern, that can be learned once and then applied to all other verbs in its group. An irregular verb's inflection pattern can't be applied to other verbs, or only to a handful of other verbs.

When the article says "most Italian verbs are regular", it's actually saying something. Most German verbs are NOT regular. It's not a given. I'm putting back that phrase in a day if you don't, because it's important for the record, ok?

There's a really interesting science of the mind that's growing up around irregular words (in one's first language) lately -- read "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker.

According to Pinker and other research he cites, irregular nouns and verbs are dealt with by a different part of the brain than regular ones.

Please note, however, that the Irregular verb article, which I have now linked into Italian grammar, apparently disagrees with you, basically saying, AFAICS, that classes of similar verbs are irregular when there are few enough of them. It looks a bit like the discussion about Italian neuter that I've had on the Romance languages talk page.
Now, I'm not qualified to decide whether yours is the correct definition, or Irregular verb's one is, or both are alternative, current definitions. Please have a look at the article.
LjL 12:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the conflict -- as far as I can tell the three definitions are identical. Look again at mine, yours, and the "irregular verb" definition:

An irregular verb's inflection pattern can't be applied to other verbs, or only to a handful of other verbs.


classes of similar verbs are irregular when there are few enough of them.


In contrast to regular verbs, irregular verbs are those verbs that fall outside the standard patterns of conjugation in the languages in which they occur.

Where's the conflict? In all cases it's still useful to mention whether the majority of verbs are regular or not. If you take "a handful" as being between 1 and 10, that's a rough magnitude for an irregular verb class. When the size of the class is more like 100-200, it's borderline (like the Swedish strong verbs), and when it's over 400, it's a legitimate declension or conjugation class of its own.
But in each case, Pinker would agree too, and point out that the "production rule" seems to trump all these definitions, at least as far as the brain's sorting mechanisms: The pattern that newly invented or borrowed verbs (or nouns) takes on is the "regular" pattern. Usually this is the majority pattern, but not always. For example in German nouns, there are 8 different pluralization declensions, and almost all nouns take one of the first 7. The 8th declension ("just add -s") is by far the smallest numerically, but it applies to all new and borrowed words. And according to language acquisition studies, the "just add -s" rule in German is treated by language acquirers as "regular", and the other 7 rules, though they're in the majority, are dealt with within the mind as irregulars.
This rule also deals with the English vs. Old English strong verbs in the irregular_verb article. If you make up a new verb, like "flink", in English and ask a native speaker to fill in "Today I flink once, but yesterday I ______ twice, and I have never ______ more than three times in a day". A modern English speaker might be tempted to conjugate "flink" like "drink" or "stink", but they'll laugh, and in the end they won't-- they'll follow "blink" instead, and use the regular forms "flinked" and "flinked" instead. An Old English speaker, used to umlaut, will consider "drink" and "stink" to be a "rule", not an exception, and will probably fill in "flank" and "flunk".
Well, myself, I have to admit that I'd certainly conjugate "flink flank flunk", but them I'm no native speaker... I suppose that I see "blink" as an exception rather than "drink".
Anyway, the part I think the article deviates from what you say is when it states that Latin, Greek, etc. verbs are not considered irregular. If, as the article says, each of them basically has its own unpredictable pattern, they would definitely be irregular according to your definition, wouldn't they? (besides, is your definition the 1st or the 3rd?)
About "irregular" verbs in Latin (i.e. those forming present, perfect and participle from different and unpredictable roots, as the article says), I'll point out that I think Italian has a lot of those, too. Probably less than Latin, and maybe not a majority, but as a skin feeling, I'm quite sure there is a lot of them. Now, since the article says they are not considered irregular in Latin, they're probably not irregular in Italian; but if one considers them irregular, then the concept that most Italian verbs are regular might turn out not to work.
LjL 15:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer in Greek[edit]

Thanks for your comments in this discussion. I don't respond in kind to Chronographos' ad hominem remarks not because I don't find them insulting, and not because I don't find them nasty, but because I trust that anyone else reading them will recognize that they reflect badly on him. I also acknowledge that my knowledge (of Greek and for that matter of everything else) is not perfect, and I am open to correction and discussion. You will note that Chronographos and Theathenae have said very little of substance. I will return to the discussion in a day or so, hoping that it has cooled off a bit. And I will stay focussed on substantive issues. --Macrakis 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't contributed much, either. I mostly like to quibble on semantics, as you might have seen... however, I can hardly stay silent when I read gratuituous insults -- both because I feel offended as well, since I also often talk about thing I'm not an expert about (and I expect people to respect my opinions and correct them if they're wrong, as long as I behave in a respectful manner), and because Wikipedia would become a complete mess if everyone acted like Chrono did.
Yes, you're perfectly right that anyone reasonable would realize that he's been unduly rude, even if I didn't hasten to point it out to them. But again, I can hardly keep my mouth shut at times.

A little joke-ini![edit]

An anecdote (se non e' vero, e' ben trovato): someone once told Federico Fellini "Maestro, with all due respect I think that film directors whose names end in -ini are the worst!" and he replied "Oh, do you mean Viscontini?" :-)) Chronographos 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Audio formats[edit]

Hi - I noticed that a while ago on the Spoken Wikipedia talk page you mentioned that "The MP3 format has already been turned down on Wikipedia." Since it is being discussed again here, I'm hoping that you can point out where the decision regarding the general use of MP3 on Wikipedia is. Thanks! -SCEhardT 23:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Debate re exec.library as a microkernel[edit]

Hi. Thanks for correcting my edit to AmigaOS. Your edit summary said "There is much debate wrt exec.library being a microkernel". I wasn't aware of that. Are there any good URLs for this debate? Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking for Usenet threads, mostly, which don't usually count as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia -- on the other hand, who said that it is a microkernel? That's the fact that should be proved.
Don't mistake this as confrontational attitude: I personally believe that AmigaOS has many of the features that traditionally define a microkernel, but I'm aware that both the definition and the status of AmigaOS are somewhat vague.
An important question is, in my opinion, "where does a kernel end?". Many consider a kernel to be the part of an OS that runs in kernel space (duh... let's say, that runs in supervisor mode). The structure of AmigaOS however, with lack of memory protection and all, makes it hard to draw a line here.
Perhaps in these cases we should simply drop the debate about what category a given OS fits best, and just adopt a more descriptive approach: for example, exec.library/AmigaOS can probably be safely said to be a message passing based system, which while different a different concept from a microkernel, is often taken as an notable feature of many microkernels AFAIK, and is possibly less troublesome to pinpoint.
LjL 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Woops, I didn't express myself clearly enough. I'm not challenging your edit; I prefer it to the previous wording (which I wrote).
I also agree with everything you've written here. Yes, every microkernel I've come across used message passing, presumably because that's the easiest way to communicate across address spaces: you either copy a bunch of "flat" bytes, or you set up some sort of capability system — see Extremely Reliable Operating System and E programming language (no relation to AmigaE). One of the many neat features of the L4 microkernel family is that larger messages can be passed without copying, by using shared memory.
Anyway, as I meant to say before I got carried away, I only asked out of curiosity. (Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall some usenet discussion on a comp.sys.amiga.* group about whether AmigaOS was a microkernel where the heat to light ratio was so high that I soon stopped reading.) I was hoping you might know of some insightful papers or articles on the topic. But looking through old usenet archives is not appealing, so consider the matter closed.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

re LARTs and clue-by-fours[edit]

The Jargon File at the bottom of the page documents them in full. - Saaber 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Amiga Virtual machine dispute resolving in private[edit]

My dear editor friends, we have a dispute to resolve.

It seems that we three only had taken care of this argument AVM. Other people prefer not commenting it.

This page has stated during Voting for Deletion it has not to be deleted but to be merged into 68k article.

It has been removed the Request for Undeletion, because infactAVM article it has been not decided for deletion.

But merging with 68K is a mistake and sure I can't merge the article into 68k. Else I will commit a false, and I don't want to.

Amiga Anywhere and ABOX have nothing in common with 68k code.

Just Amithlon while booting it starts an environment in which 68K code runs natively and ABOX has both built-in 68K code interpreter as long with PPC Amiga WarpUP interpreter (WarpUP is PPC Amiga executable fileformat for the Amiga classic subsystem running on CPU expansion card qith PPC 601 and 603e processor).

It seems to me that: Ljl he said that it could be started Amiga Anywhere article. He said there is no virtual machine that it could be considered Amiga Machine he also said I created a neologism.

I don't understood Mdwh position if he want article deleted at all, or just condsidered AVM as not correct at all and the arguments have to be dropped.

To both of you editors I remember that AVM is NOT a neologism. It is commonly used amongst amigans, but evidenceds I had bringing seems not convince you both.

But sure AVM is no a neologism. It is just a CATEGORY name which groups in a summary some brief informations about various objects with common characteristics.

The three existing Amiga VM (note that I just drop the fourth, Petunia, because has different characteristics which brings it into some sort of emulator like multi-purpose program) it is far more pratical that all three these arguments should have a common article which LISTS all the three virtual environments here in ONE article with AVM name.

It is just necessary because of reasons of logical order and search purposes by users of Wikipedia.

It could be that users searching for any kind of virtual machines want to access that data.

So there they can find just a summary of the three amiga VM. Else ifthey want refine their search only if they want to, by clicking on a single Virtual environment link and seek for its complete article.

(Example: it is just as Music ->Folk Music or Classical or Rock Music, then searching for Rock Music->Hard Rock.

At this point the user could refine the search in Hard Rock or decide other choices.

With AVM article existing the user could make these choices: Computer->Amiga->AVM->Amiga Anywhere or Computer->Virtual Machine->Amiga Virtual Machine, etc.)

This is my point of view. I will send a copy of it to both of you to define this dispute.

If we could find an agreement as Wikipedia advices as a first step of dispute resolving, then it will be fine to me.

If not, then sure we three had had follow all the steps for a friendly resolution and in the end I could start a Request for Comment, as long it has been decided this article could not be undeleted, just because the fact it has never been deleted.

Sincerely,--Raffaele Megabyte 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alveolar Trilled R[edit]

Hi, could you help me with the "rolling R"? I cannot speak it.--Julius-r 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Italian language[edit]

I read that you are from Milan. So you should know, then, that the Italian ISTAT has informed that the Italian population has reached the 60 million mark last month. That is why I have erased the "about". And to tell the truth I should have written "about 62 million" because there are in Italy nearly 2 million illegal immigrants to add to that number. But we are dealing with "mother tongue" and I am going to accept your opinion. Ciao. --Paul0559 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your rationale (I didn't know we had just touched the 60 million mark), but as you say yourself, it's still hard to claim it's exactly that number. Keep in mind that "about" is not a weasel word (it's simply there to indicate the number is an estimate), so it won't hurt to have it there. LjL (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted statement that makes absolutely no sense[edit]

it actually had an important point to make, although the presentation was far from clear: milanese-italian (i.e. the variety of italian spoken in Milan) is one of the most influential dialects (of italian) at the sociolinguistic level (because of the prominent economic position that Milan enjoys). This must not be confused with Milanese, which is a variety of Western Lombard, NOT of Italian, and which is an L language in teh diglossic scenario. --Dakrismeno (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat refs[edit]

Re this edit [1] to Internet Relay Chat, as of revision 258665623 where {{morefootnotes}} was added [2] the references were quite poor. I had been considering removing the template you just removed but didn't think it was quite ready (although it was getting borderline). Overall the article still as a long way to go though. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It probably has a long way to go; but as a third-party who saw the article for the first time (well, or at least I don't remember reading it before), that template simply seemed out of place before such a huge list of references. Perhaps some other template would be needed (or, hey, perhaps there's too many references where references aren't needed, and too few where they are?), but that is not it - so I was bold and deleted it. LjL (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, thats why I left you a note, and I can see why you removed it. The article still has a long way to go both in terms of references/citations and expansion. Fully expanded and referenced I'd expect a few hundred links in the references section. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Please keep in mind that I was replying to User:RicoCorinth, NOT to User:Redthoreau, and for that reason I used single indentation (":"). I believe that is proper use of indentation, and since it is the second time already that User:Redthoreau changes my indentation (and in the former case, moves my paragraph) making it appear as if they were the ones I was replying to, I thought I would point this out. LjL (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the mix up in reference to indentations. I have always understood that each post gets indented from the proceeding one - not how you described it. As for moving the post, that was in response to the fact that I went to post it and there was an edit-conflict with yours. My placement was to show that it was a response to him and not you. I will be conscious of this in the future, and not adjust your posts.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Indentation is probably often used sloppily by many, because it's not as transparent and easy to use as newsgroup threads, but at least in theory, it's supposed to follow Wikipedia:TP#Indentation and specifically Wikipedia:Indentation - so that it mimicks an actual thread, with indentation showing who one is replying to.
So two posts by two people at the same indentation level are supposed to mean they're both responding to the same previous post.
I hope this clears it up, sorry for snapping about it. LjL (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Here's when to put a disambig note on top: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage_guidelines. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok; in that case, I'm changing ASTER so that it redirects to Aster (which is a disambiguation page) rather than our Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, since if one types "ASTER" they get directly to the article and, per your edit, don't get to see any disambiguation information. LjL (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


You're welcome! Happy Editing :) TubularWorld (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On Manuel Zelaya dispute[edit]

I have brought up concerns over the other parties comments with them, but I would also ask you to make sure that you both adhere to WP:CIVIL, characterizing another editors actions as rude in an edit summary[3] is likely to be inflammatory and is close to a personal attack. You must make all pains to stick to discussion of policy and the facts and be wary of commenting on the behavior and actions of the other editor. If you are finding that you cannot work with the other editor then another forum should be used to resolve the dispute, you should not use the article talkpage to prolong your dispute. I suggest starting a dialog with the editor on their own talk page to clarify your intentions and clear the air, sticking clear of the facts of the current dispute, doing so will lead to your both being able to work together better. Mfield (Oi!) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, though I believe I will simply refrain from touching that article or its talk page. I'd like to point out that I started commenting about rudeness in the edit summary only after the situation had already excalated a lot. LjL (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you are frustrated but I think that you have both been arguing with some misconceptions about each others intentions. There have certainly been some misunderstandings of policy that are now clearer. I have faith that with a clearing of the air you could happily work through this and it will give you better hope next time you run into a similar situation. I think you will find the other party is in a very similar position. Mfield (Oi!) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I do believe the other party is acting in slightly worse faith than me; but anyway, I simply suspect (and hope) there will just be no further problems, since I saw your exchange on the article's talk page and I see they agree with you on a wording that I have no problems at all with (as I thought I had explained before, but maybe I hadn't been clear). LjL (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

LjL, help me understand why you undid my changes, your comment "CITING Constitution articles doesn't somehow SHOW they're being violated." seem to me to show you didn't read my additions very thoroughly. The text as it now stands has several "citation needed" statements. I provided the citations. I added a paragraph to show why it was not a constitutional violation to arrest someone before 6 am in case of an emergency, and that only the electoral tribunal has the authority to hold a plebiscite, which must be also approved by congress. I feel these additions explain the situation much more accurately and completely than the existing text. I couldn't simply say so, however, I had to provide citations for each of these statements, and I did. Aeortiz (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's that I'm very tired of seeing statements like "Foo acted illegally", a source requested, and a "source" provided in terms of "Foo acted illegally according to Constitution article 12345 (link to article 12345)". That hardly even qualifies as a primary source, and Wikipedia much prefers secondary sources anyway. To back up a statement that someone acted illegally (which, incidentally, is a disparging statement that should be treated with much care according to WP:BLP), you need a reliable secondary source making the reasoning. You can't just make the leap yourself that since Constitution art. 12345 says X, and Foo did Y, then Foo acted illegally.
Let's look at what you did in detail:
"President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a non-binding referendum, but only the National Electoral Tribunal has the authority to do this, according to article 5 of the Constitution." (link to art. 5) "Also, a plebiscite must be approved by Congress."
Who here is asserting that what Zelaya tried to do was really what is described by article 5? If that's your own original research, it doesn't apply. You need a source.
"Therefore, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Congress and the Supreme Court [...]"
The El Heraldo citation given never mentions the word "congreso".
"[the ballots] which had been confiscated and were being guarded at the Air Force base"
I honestly don't see anything saying that in the CNN article. It says the article were at a military base, but not that they were confiscated, which seems to be the primary claim.
"Zelaya's removal took place about an hour before polls were to open and violated article 102 of the Honduran Constitution, which prohibits the extradition of Honduran citizens" (link to article 102)
Usual issue. Article 102 is an excellent source for itself, but not a source for the fact that the removal was illegal.
The military arrested him at 5:30 am; arrests can normally be held only between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm, except in cases of emergency, according to article 99 of the Honduran Constitution. (link to article 99)
First, the source doesn't say the arrest took place at 5:30am (although I suppose a source for that could be found easily). But who's to say that "allanacion" is an arrest, for example? And the way I read the article, it says that only in cases of emergency ("en caso de urgencia") someone can be "allanado", and even then only between 6am and 6pm. See? You can't just take an article of the Constitution and apply it to a given situation on Wikipedia. That's the job of lawyers, not Wikipedians.
And also a more general remark... do we really need all this detail in the article? There is already an article about the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, which is linked as a main article on Honduras. In the article about Honduras, I really don't think we should explain in detail what happened, at which times of the day, etc etc. It doesn't belong to the article. Some of your sources will probably be useful on the article about the crisis. --LjL (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you LjL, I understand now. But in upholding our zeal for not including original research we are at the mercy of the reams of misinformation published by very reputable sources like the BBC, CNN, The London Times, which are based on, let me say this carefully, misreporting (severe bias and outright lies), from Venezuelan news sources. I will look for sources that explain this clearly, but given the current political climate, almost only editorials dare to publish anything that could conflict with the official position of the OAS. So truth must be sacrificed to avoid original research? Can't clear language and logic speak for themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeortiz (talkcontribs) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration with news source, but if Wikipedia started doing original research, especially on political topics, we'd be doomed. There has already been hugely heated debated about Honduran matters even while most of the editors agreed to only use reliable sources... imagine what would happen if people didn't. Synthezising conclusions from sources is also a very dangerous path to take.
I believe reliable sources can be found that don't misreport... and if not now, in a while. There is no hurry on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow - maybe there is for some who want to push their political point of view as quickly as possible, but that's not Wikipedia's issue). Good sources may be a little harder to find that mainstream news articles, but I'm sure you couldn't have been the only one using logic. --LjL (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


I thought it was under the next cite, but I could be wrong, feel free to add them back if it isn't in it though, I could be wrong. --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

You made a good call here. Keep up your good work.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


It seems you've taken an interest in my research on the bias in the Pandeism article. I hope you favor a fair and correct telling of the history of things like this. Since by the grace of good fortune you also speak Italian, perhaps you would be so noble as to confirm the correctness of my received translation? The entire passage may readily be viewed on google books, which is here, Theoph876 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried, but honestly the Italian is a bit too old-fashioned (and stylistically involved, while at it) for me to make much sense out of it. Maybe I'll try again a literal translation, but honestly I can barely understand the concepts in what it's saying. --LjL (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort. Perhaps you know someone able to tackle the more ancient tongue. It hd never occurred to me that so ancient a language as Italian could have an "old fashioned" style! But the gist of my translation, that Pandeism identifies man as fragments of God, and this is an abomination, that is surely correct? Theoph876 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems more or less correct to me, but I just couldn't swear on it. Italian has remained relatively stable for a long time, but some writers in 1700 and 1800 were fond of using an over-complicated style, I suppose they wanted to show they were very literate, or something. There are other more mundanely written pieces of the same age that I could ready without any trouble. --LjL (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Theoph876 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Z80 et al.[edit]

If you have a handle on the CPU articles, I'll leave them to you. I was mainly trying to add a few refs and the databooks (when they can still be found) since the other editor was taking such issue with them. The Websters quotation books [4] [5] make heavy use Wikipedia content and note it with [WP]. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, please contribute, there's a lot of citations to add, and I don't think I'll be able to find them all at all (not to mention properly citing them with "cite book" and such templates). I did find out that those Webster books were full of Wikipedia content... I had added a citation from them, then realized. Also, I hadn't realized the other editor was on a crusade against several CPU articles, rather than just Zilog Z80. That doesn't look good, really. Gratuitous templating is not. Of course, it's true that many of those article lack sources, but that is what Template:Unreferenced, Template:Refimprove and Template:No footnotes are for. --LjL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll still do some stuff but I really wanted to get back to working on the IRC article merger I'm really involved with right now. Talk:Zilog Z180 and [6] will give you an idea of what I was up against. The tagging of Zilog Z80 was retaliation on his part for me adding refs to some of the other Zilog CPU articles.
Don't worry about the citation templates too much, someone can always add those later. Just as long as the link and title are in the ref tags then it isn't difficult to change them. I just changed the refs in the Zilog Z8000 article to use the cite.php ref tag system, previously it was using one of the really really old citation formats that was commonly used on Wikipedia [7]
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Air Traffic Controller (video game)[edit]

In the game and in real life, planes (and also cars) reduce speed to avoid hitting another plane (or car) in front of them. Simple? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple enough. Then why doesn't the article say that, instead of the very cryptic "The function of speed reduction is returned. (Speeding up is unavailable)"? --LjL (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Because this feature was enabled in ATC1, removed in all ATC2 and ATC3 until the latest one (Sendai Airmanship) came out. You should have read the article first before calling out "clarification needed" because it has been stately clearly on the last one of first paragraph in the article about speed instructions and the reason for removal of such feature. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so a speed reduction feature, which was removed, has not been put back. That's seriously not the meaning that "the function of speed reduction is returned" conveys. That sounds like a mathematical function and the value it returns, you know. Besides, the article has absolutely no citations, so asking for clarifications is the least I can do. I still cannot really pinpoint the description of these chances in other paragraphs. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps it just really isn't clear? --LjL (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, this is an encyclopedia article. Its part should be reasonably clear without necessarily having to read the whole article; that's how encyclopedias work. --LjL (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jetset (video game)[edit]

I was pleasantly surprised at your withdrawal of the nomination. I've done all I can with the sources available to me - it has now got three citations and some more detail. Fences&Windows 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request[edit]

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Re [8] because ISBN-13s are not fully supported and often fail when attempting to do lookups via the Special:Booksources links. I'm not sure who added the Please use the 13-digit one if available bit to WP:ISBN but that is wrong. ISBN-10s are industry standard and are trivial to convert to ISBN-13 but as of today ISBN-13 is just not widely supported by 3rd parties. Btw, you also undid my other edits. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed removing other things. I do think, though, that we should all be using ISBN-13 by now... it's been pushed as the new standard for a while, and I think if we're still stuck to ISBN-10, that's because of inertia, which we shouldn't really be copying.
There was also a bot on Wikipedia which went and changed ISBN-10's into ISBN-13, although that's been disabled now, for reasons I don't really know.
--LjL (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, the bot was disabled because of some of these problems and the difficulty in validating ISBNs (sometimes the numbers people add are invalid or point to the wrong book). The note about -13s was added in this edit [9] and if I wasn't so busy I'd bring it up on Wikipedia talk:ISBN. The only difference between a -10 and -13 is the 978 prefix and the checksum digit. The problem I've found with many 3rd party searches is that they do not index ISBN-13. Google themselves only recently began adding -13s to their own book search service. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I should also mention that the rule I tend to use for adding ISBNs is if the book has a -10 (pre-2007), I use that. If it was published after the transition period and only has a -13, then I use that. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well if it only has an ISBN-13, then I have no doubts you'd use that! :-P --LjL (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your violation of my talk page[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments states, "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored." -- You just did that. Please stop. -- Rico 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And you removed my comments from a PUBLIC talk page, which is entirely bad manners, and you haven't stopped when asked. Boo to you. --LjL (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


I've taken our disputes to ANI. -- Rico 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Just thinking we should provide a verbal description of what the numbers indicate as per WP:ALT and for further clarification. Are were these areas determined by were the person looked or having them point?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The test giver explicitly asks which features made one identify the blot as whatever they identified it as. Then they circle the pointed-at part in their notebook. That's my understanding of the sources, and it's also what's been done with me when I took the Rorschach. 26% means 26% of people find that feature prominent/identifying. --LjL (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your hard work on this article, I am glad to see it being improved. During my wanderings I came across a few sources. I have not had much time to look through them, but I did jot them down. They may be of interest to you: User:Chillum/sandbox#Rorschach test. Chillum 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xenotalk

I have never partecipated in such a mediation before, so before agreeing I'd like some clarifications if you can. I am not really prepared to compromise to the point of removing any images or avoiding any content; the only change I can contemplate is moving the first image down in the article. So there is basically only one point among the ones you mentioned that I'd be willing to concede, which makes me wonder whether my partecipation wouldn't just be a waste of time for everybody; on the other hand, if I understand this correctly, my declining to partecipate would mean the mediation wouldn't go on at all. --LjL (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing to participate in mediation doesn't mean you necessarily concede to anything; it just means you're willing to have an outside party work through the content dispute. I listed the several issues just to give the mediator an idea on what issues are in contention. –xenotalk 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rosecharacter test[edit]

I already warned the user, twice, technically. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen they had been warned (although I only noticed once), but since they messed up the article >=3 times, I thought I could give a sterner warning too. Not that it matters overly much while the article is semi-protected, but. --LjL (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the discription[edit]

Seem the NYTs has misspoke about who added the common discriptions of the inkblot. Have emailed the gentlemen who wrote it as if I remember right it was you. Anyway good work. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was me, yes, but I must admit I am a bit confused at this point. Well, quite confused; which article is it that claims a specific person added anything? The only NYT article I know about doesn't really mention those "common responses" or anything... I see there are a lot of other articles / blog posts popping up at the moment, some with more and some with less information taken from Wikipedia, but I've lost track; the talk page just goes faster than I can catch up. --LjL (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have mentioned your involvement in some of the interviews I have given. I have another half dozen schedueled. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

IP User[edit]

This IP has begun to sign "lysdexia" on User talk:, and so appears to be the banned user User:Lysdexia (notice the same pattern of bizarre edits). Strad (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, to be honest I had noticed that... However, I didn't know whether it was appropriate to report them and where, not having really dealt with this kind of thing before. --LjL (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Browser errors?[edit]

You seem to be inadvertently adding random characters to the top business, i.e. [10] [11] [12] [13] . Not sure if these are browser errors (?) or just typos. You might consider using "section edit" which will focus on the particular section you are commenting on and hopefully avoid errant letters. cheers, –xenotalk 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, uhm... I haven't the slighest idea. I'll try to use section edit. --LjL (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries. You may be interested in the most recent addition I made to the talk page too. –xenotalk 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You mean ? --LjL (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep... there's also the accompanying video but I can't seem to figure how to give a direct link, it's linked at the canada AM homepage: 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see what you're saying. I'm sort of glad he only mentioned country. --LjL (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific America[edit]

Hey LJL you are mentioned here: I think the Becks depression index is here I do not know about the MPPI :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological test[edit]

I support your effort to better improve the organization and access to these images. They may all have to be looked into place like those on the Rorschach page however.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your ongoing promotion of freedom of information and the virtues of Wikipedia in spite of strong opposition. Keep up the good work.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :-) --LjL (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Zilog Z380
Memory map
TI-73 series
True north
COMPUTE!'s Gazette
National Party of Honduras
Meta key
Skid (aerodynamic)
Friulian language
Romance copula
Sardinian language
Animal language
SAMPA chart
Add Sources
Machine code monitor
SAM Coupé
Classical Latin
In-circuit emulator
Atkins v. Virginia
Latin grammar
Device driver
Radio navigation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelaya[edit]

i did not put destitution i put deposition which is obviously better than destitution since that word means another thing, but deposition means exactly what i refer to Vercetticarl (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did originally put "destitution", you only changed it shortly after my warnings. Please - I can read article history. --LjL (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


what says totally makes sense, please answer me why wikipedia does recognize coup leader Andry Rajoelina to be the faithfully president of Madagascar, and Micheletti is not consider president? what's the difference? Vercetticarl (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can read you fine on the Honduras talk page, no need to mirror it here. --LjL (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates on Extremaduran language[edit]

¿Porqué pusiste esa plantilla innecesariamente?. Ese artículo no tiene ninguna citation needed (cita requerida). Tampoco se puede exigir referencias para todo. un saludo...--El estremeñu (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, write in English; thank you. --LjL (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Podría escribiros en italiano, --El estremeñu (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia; other editors may be interested in our discussion; therefore, we should write in English. --LjL (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Extremaduran language, has all references. --El estremeñu (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You could have said that in your edit summaries. Anyway, I do not believe that to be the case; therefore, I'll tag every sentence I cannot readily see a reference for. Please provide them, or otherwise don't remove the tags. --LjL (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your language. Please, talk in Italian. Only is necesasary the articles are wroten in English. But is not necessary in discussion. Saludos --El estremeñu (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit another encyclopedia if you don't understand the language of this one. I'll speak Italian on the Italian Wikipedia, not here. --LjL (talk)
Bye!, we can not talk between us. You don't understand. Un saludo --El estremeñu (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
eres el que tiene que hablar Inglés en la enciclopedia en inglés, no yo español o italiano. Hay otras personas aquí que podrian querer leer lo que escribimos nosotros. Puedes utilizare Google Translate para ayudarte con la traducción, pero no puedes creer tener razón con esa insistencia de hablar otras lenguas en la enciclopedia en inglés. --LjL (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I know much about Extremaduran language. I can to say you. that article doesn't need more references. I can to ensure it. --El estremeñu (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I am sorry. Sometimes I am thoom. --El estremeñu (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think you'd better express your sorrow on the ANI report (I wonder, though, would you be sorry if I hadn't reported you in the first place)? --LjL (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, correct the errors in the article La posada de los muertos. --El estremeñu (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No obvious errors; I just believe that article shouldn't exist. --LjL (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If a person, teach me something. Also is necessary a citation. It is question --El estremeñu (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Err... what? --LjL (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, I believe, you would must respond in my talk. --Der extremadurisch (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I will respond in the talk page where the discussion is. --LjL (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you to remove that template in the article La posada de los muertos. --Der extremadurisch (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
What, the deletion template?! No, of course not. The template will be deleted after the deletion debate has run out. --LjL (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why?, you are not an administratot. --Ille extremadurensis (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You will not have problems with the references in my article. I have understand it. --Ille extremadurensis (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
What does my not being administrator have to do with anything?! --LjL (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal action[edit]

Hey LGL looks like the psychological community is attempting to take legal action against me. Kind of funny.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely unexpected, given what were "absolutely not" legal threats :-( --LjL (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

High capacity data cassettes[edit]

You added a request for a cite at Compact Cassette saying I have trouble believing this, I've looked for such cassette-recording software for a long time and never found any. The section is not really talking about software, but high capactiy (60 MB) data cassettes in the compact cassette size and format. I have used these, which are discussed on the talk page. The major tape suppliers supported the format - see Maxell CS=600 HD, Teac CS-500 XD. I'm not sure how to document an appropriate source for the article (take a photo of an old cassette tape backup system? Scan in an old manual?). It is pretty hard to find adverts from the time since advertising was banned on the Internet back then... --Blainster (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Extremaduran language, GRAMMATICAL REVISION, PLEASE, --O extremenho (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revert to Phoenician alphabet[edit]

Hi! You recently reverted my removal of a section from the Phoenician alphabet article that discusses an inscription found in Sidon, asking "Why? This article is about the alphabet, not the language it's used to write." You are correct, but this inscription was not some sort amalgamation of Hebrew words written using the Phoenician alphabet. If you review the source (a New York Times article from 1855), you'll see that it states quite explicitly: "[A facsimile of the carving] proves that the inscription is in ancient Hebrew characters, and that all of it is Hebrew excepting a few words, which, perhaps, may be." The source never says anything about it being written using the Phoenician alphabet. I hope that clarifies the reason for my removal of the paragraph. I'll wait to revert until I've heard back from you though. Cheers. ← George [talk] 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I think I'd have some trouble finding the original NYT article, but I guess I can take your word for it. I wonder, however, what actually differentiates the Phoenician alphabet from a very early Hebrew alphabet, aside from the language they're used to write? It's likely the same question asked by whoever proposed a merger between Phoenician alphabet and Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (the latter basically say "the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet, just used to write Hebrew"). Do you know just what sort of alphabet was used in the NYT-cited inscription? --LjL (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So the NYT article is available in their archives. You have to remember though that this was 150 years ago, so I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source for factual information about the archaelogical find in general (in terms of editorial oversight, or even just general linguistic knowledge at the time). The article essentially says that they found a "Phenician" inscription on the sarcophagus for one of the kings of Sidon: "...there were only a very few remains of Phenician writing known, all of which are very short, together amounting to only a small portion of the newly discovered one..." Your guess that it may have been Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is quite likely I'd say, especially because they describe it as "ancient Hebrew characters" and say a professor translated it into modern Hebrew. Perhaps the passage should be moved over to the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet article instead of the Hebrew alphabet one? If the two articles end up getting merged, then it could be merged back as well. ← George [talk] 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. --LjL (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar in Satania[edit]

Bueno, entonces como sería domined by the internet, il spagnolo usa due sinni d'interrogazione, recordalo, --O extremenho (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Leíste lo que escribi en mi "clarify"? Te he preguntado si querías decir "dominated by the Internet" (tu habías escrito "dominED FOR the Internet"). En vez de criticar mi español (que no debería aún utilizar en la Wikipedia en inglés), por que no pones mas atención a los tags que pongo en los articulos, en vez de eliminarlos sin leerlos? --LjL (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand it. --O extremenho (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Really I don't understand, please correct it in Satania --O extremenho (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have. --LjL (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

About the references[edit]

La referencia que borrasti nu paeçía, quiziás polel su nombri (angu sobri apellíus), peru nesa huenti apaiçía lu que comprobaba que Estremaúra hue de Lión.

La referencia que tu borraste non parecia, per il suo nome (sopra apelativi)...

No comproba nada la referencia de un sitio web qualquier que podria haber hecho yo. Lee la pagina sobra las referencias. --LjL (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Tu non hai entendito, nesa pagina web, aparecia que il reino spagnolo di Extremadura, fue parte del de León, esa pagina non è un blog-. --O extremenho (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Saluti
Y quien dijo que es un blog? Solo digo que no es una fuente fiable. Es una publicacion cientifica? No creo. Solo es un sitio web. WP:RS dice: "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". "Published" significa "publicadas", en libros o revistas cientificas. Tambien dice: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process", que significa que las fuentes fiables son material creible publicado con un proceso de publicacion fiable. Un sitio web amatorial? No es eso.
Pues yo no queria una citacion que diga que Extremadura fue parte de Leon, mas sobre todo una para "the cultural upheaval of Spanish-speaking Salamanca's University was the cause of the quick Castilianisation of the eastern parts of this province". --LjL (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Entendito --O extremenho (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ISBN and Google Books[edit]

Hi. I've replied on my own talk page. — AdiJapan 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do? — AdiJapan 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Well, just add it back. Meanwhile, though, I'm thinking of bots that might make this smoother by finding out which sites have a given book by itself. --LjL (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that would be a good idea. Also bots that replace dead links would be really helpful, although probably not possible in general, but only in specific situations. — AdiJapan 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Debate over inclusion of audio recording as external link.[edit]

You are out of line by telling me to desist from arguing in favor of a certain external link at the Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline article. The link was placed there just hours ago. To date three editors have made a comment. Although they all oppose my edit, this is too soon to claim any consensus. I'm perfectly entitled to argue my case and extract from them some compehensive arguments. LTSally (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly discuss the addition; what I don't feel you can do is actually add the link to the article without prior consensus, since you agree that it'd be a case of ignoring (making an exception to) a guideline, which requires prior consensus. --LjL (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

About La posada de los muertos[edit]

Why it was redirected?, I have two reasons for no redirect it

  • It is a single
  • It is a most known Mägo de Oz songs

There is other error, la posada de los muertos, is a song of the album Gaia II: La voz dormida, no from Finisterra. --Der Extremadurisch (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a whole AfD discussion about it. You chose to not take part in it. Your problem. I'm not going to talk about this now. --LjL (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ljl, this user is clearly upset but seems to be making good faith, if wrongheaded, edits, and it seems that English is not their first language. Take a moment, breath, and next time you respond to them try to be a bit more patient, polite, and less bite-y. --Mask? 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look further up this talk page, you'll see I've had long discussions with the users, including ones in Spanish (or some broken version of it in my case). At this stage, it's well past assumption of good faith. There's a difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand; also, "not knowing English" is a really poor excuse when you're editing the English Wikipedia and not having the humility to accept that, if you don't know English, then perhaps you aren't in the best position to know what the policies and guidelines are. --LjL (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not do that, we have a good relation. --O extremenho (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC). Thanks for your corrections

About the section phonological characteristics in the article Extremaduran language[edit]

All the references in this section are in Ismael Carmona's dictionary. Saluti--O extremenho (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which you still have not properly cited as I had requested. "Ismael Carmona García's dictionary" is not a proper citation, and I couldn't even use it to find information from the Internet! Give TITLE, PUBLISHER, DATE, ISBN NUMBER. Thank you.
Also, if "all references in the section" are in that dictionary, then why did you only cite it for "Occasional replacement of the consonants l/r or r/l"? --LjL (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's Ismael Carmona García (in the picture). --Der Künstler (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it correct now?(the reference) --Der Künstler (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What? Are you using an Extremaduran Wikipedia editor's personal "dictionary" as a source for the English Wikipedia, am I reading this correctly? --LjL (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do you believe that the dictionary is not a fiable sources. --Der Künstler (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Answer my question, please. --LjL (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Si, pero su ortografia es la oficial de la güiqipeya, tiene 2 ediciones, pero solo una esta en Internet. --Der Künstler (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Y quien deci que tiene que estar en Internet? Si es un libro, es much mejor. Solo necesitan las informaciones sobre el libro: sobre todo, el numero ISBN.
Que su ortografia sea la oficial de Guiquipeya no significa nada: Wikipedia no puede ser utilizada como fuente para se misma. --LjL (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: If I search for the title you have now added, "Izionariu castellanu-estremeñu", on Google, I find one hit: the Wikipedia article. Tell me, what should I make of that? Why on earth should I believe it's not some random person's private, non-peer-reviewed enterprise? Please, find a better source. Lee WP:RS. --LjL (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Bueno, non mire la sua ortografia in meno, gli è un linguista. Además gli è un parlante (palranti au falanti in estremeñu) nativo d'extremeño. --Der Künstler (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


I have no problem with "acknowledging reality" thanks, I have never denied that any "discussions took place" and I have never deliberately sought to provoke you, or any others, "for the sake of eliciting an emotional reaction" (or for any other sake, for that matter). I do not use "psychological tricks" (which in this case would be very off-topic, in my view). I don't accuse others with whom I might disagree of "wasting Talk page space" and I do not make false accusations as you did about me here [14] (and for which I have still received no apology). And no, I cannot imagine that you ever laugh. But your emotional response is, of course, none of my business (although even Chillum tries to have a sense of humour occasionally). Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will bring further complaints about your inappropriate use of talk pages to more appropriate venues than your talk page since people's "emotional response" to what you may write is "none of your business". Have a good day. --LjL (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I now see - you are an administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhm... no? --LjL (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
As I've said countless times, I won't apologize for pasting the wrong link instead of the one I intended. But you've repeatedly shown you choose to ignore what doesn't suit your purposes. --LjL (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Your accusation had nothing to do with pasting a wrong link. And the times are easily countable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There was no accusation in the first place from my part; I was simply pointing to things that had been said and which you seemed to deny having been said; I took no moral judgment about that; I simply provided diff links (some of them being the wrong ones, admittedly). I won't apologize for something I haven't done and you're making up.
That is actually another instance where I have a lot of trouble assuming good faith and not believing instead that you were trying to provoke me all along.
If on the other hand you're just very sarcastic and you think that makes you very funny, think again. --LjL (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This is one of your "pointing to things that had been said" which, apparently, was not a wrong one, and which I'm not making up:[15] Please explain why you were so ready to support Dlabtot's accusation of "IDHT" - of which you now continue to accuse me. And what evidence was there of "veiled personal attacks" apart from your's and Dlabtot's personal opinions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not support them. You had claimed you HADN'T BEEN ACCUSED of "IDHT", and I showed you (modulo wrong link) that you had. That hardly amounts to SHARING or ENDORSING those accusations, but it seems that such details are entirely irrelevant to you. I am indeed accusing you of IDHT now, but for entirely unrelated reasons. --LjL (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I suggested that I hadn't PREVIOUSLY been accused of IDHT". Art LaPella had criticised Roux, not me, for IDHT, as he later clarified. And why does asking for clarification about somene's statement amount to "veiled personal attacks"? And what are the reasons that you now accuse me of IDHT? And exactly what is the nature of your "further complaints to more appropriate venues". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, "previously" compared to what?
You were accused of IDHT here (yes, you, as Roux was clearly talking to you, indentation and all):

[...] The same is not true for internet inkblot images, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The entire argument is known as 'shutting the barn door after the horse is gone.' The cat is well out of the bag, the argument has been extensively refuted for three years, and the fact that a very small group of you refuses to accept the consensus is neither here nor there; at this point you are engaging in ignoring what other have been saying for three years and tendentious editing. → ROUX  16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Later, you were said to have been previously accused of IDHT:

You have been repeatedly been directed to the Refusal to 'get the point' section of our behavioral guideline against disruptive editing. If you haven't yet, you should review it. As for how to treat editors who are engaging in disruptive behavior, it's already well established practice on Wikipedia to use warnings followed by a gradually escalating series of topic and/or site bans. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

but you asked where that took place:

I see. I was asking this: "how many of the editors who have signed up to Rfc statements are administrators?" Could you show me where I was previously directed to WP:IDHT? And where exactly was that "veiled personal attack" that I made? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

so I told you (with a wrong link, the right one being intended to be one to the FIRST quoted snipped that I pasted during the course of THIS post):

Unwilling, not necessarily unable. Dlabtot obviously meant at least this (as the "veiled personal attacks" go) and this and this (as for IDHT). --LjL (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

With me so far? Yes/no?
As for the "veiled personal attack", you're mistaken. Nobody, I believe, accused you of that because you asked for "clarification about somene's statement". It referred to this:

Thanks for making your motivation clear, Dlabtot. Yes, of course, "administrative tools". I hadn't realised that it was only the editors with those tools that were trying to produce a "better encyclopedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, since 1) the above ditinctly sounds like a thinly veiled personal attack 2) what I diff'd was the comment immediately following that one, and clearly being a follow-up to that one, which said:

Firstly, you would be well advised to refrain from casting aspersions or questioning the motivations of other editors. Secondly, what is I hadn't realised that it was only the editors with those tools that were trying to produce a "better encylopedia". supposed to mean? Of course I did not say or imply anything remotely like that. Please refrain from further attempts at veiled personal attacks. Failed or not, such efforts are inappropriate and contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above sounds distinctly like a personal attack warning directed to the comment of yours immediately previous. Justified or not, it was obviously the comment that Dlabtot later referred to, and that's why I diff'd to it saying it was obvious.

Now, I've done the best that I could, and spent quite a number of minutes, fetching stuff from the talk page AGAIN to clarify this; in case it's still not clear, I'm sorry, but I won't waste any more time with this. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you are wasting more time. But as the accused party here, I don't feel it's such a total waste of my time. As you will see from my Talk page (the whole history of which you are welcome to check) I am not used to being accused of anything by anyone. So this is all rather a new and unwelcome experience for me, I'm afraid.

  • You have waited until THIS post to correct your mistaken links that you put in on 14 Sept (except that they are not corrected on that page, only here)?
Although some do it relatively freely, it's considered rude to edit one's talk page comments later, so I have never done that (except from striking through one of the links very shortly after you pointed out the first mistake, which is considered acceptable). I thought I did, however, repeatedly made it clear to you that the link paste itself was mistaken. I'm sure I've mentioned that a number of times, and even apologized for that (and only that!), although it was merely a mistake. --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How can me reading and responding to a mistaken link (two mistaken links?) pasted by you, be construed as me having "repeatedly shown [I] choose to ignore what doesn't suit [my] purposes"?
Is that the only thing you've said in your life? Hardly. Perhaps I referred to entirely other things. Although admittedly, your stubborness in requesting an apology from me when all I feel that I did is 1) made a bit of a mess with pasting links and 2) provide with diffs that had been asked for, without even directly endorsing anything in them (although you took it as if I did endorse it; that's another thing you tend to do that does get on my nerves). --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Roux's comment was directed not to me personally, but to "a very small group of you". I choose not to be part of any small group and the comments I make are on my own behalf. Roux gave no evidence of his claim, it was his opinion.
So what? When in the posting where I provided the diffs did I claim I had any evidence of it being other than his opinion? (as for the "small group", it did seem to me like that part was pretty much directed to you personally) --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You have now chosen to accuse me of IDHY but for "entirely unrelated reasons". Please, what are these reasons?
They're that you're making ridiculous claims of previous long and painful discussion not applying to the Rey-Osterrieth article because of falsities like DanglingDiagnosis' policy "not being about test disclosure" (which it is), and absurdities like that. Your arguments are now based on nothing except on disacknowledging previous discussion and consenus; that's what I believe is not acceptable. --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You have threatened to "bring further complaints about [my] inappropriate use of talk pages to more appropriate venues than [my] talk page". Should you not at least explain to me first what those complaints are? Why is my use of talk pages "inappropriate"?
I complained on your talk page. Yes, that was a complaint, in case it didn't show. Since your response to it was, in my opinion, less than ideal, I informed you that, in case I will have any more (further) complaints of the same or similar sort, I will report them to relevant noticeboards rather than on your talk page. --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is the very first contribution you make to either the article OR the talk page for The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: [16], directed personally at me, telling me that I am "ranting" and that I "should give up"? Won't other editors think that you are more concerned with picking a fight with me than with building a good article?
That is not my first contribution to that page. Check again, please. Your browser should have "Find in page" function (the same that I used with limited success to give diffs in the post under dispute, by the way). --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that your initial apparent support for Dladtot's accusation did not necessarily mean that you agreed with it or that you "took any moral judgment", but your responses and comments since that point all very strongly suggest that you did. And do now.

It is obvious that you are a genuine and intelligent editor. I can accept that your comments are made in good faith. But I have no wish to be repeatedly "told off" in a tone that is reminiscent of a domineering school mistress. Neverthless, I have no wish also to continue any argument with you. So I'd like to know if you would now like us both to draw a line under this dispute or if you wish us to take it further.

p.s. why does your talk page have the "Category:Wikipedia administrators" tag at the bottom?

Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a... very good question. To the best of my knowledge, though, that tag is incorrect. --LjL (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I just realized it's because I put it there in User:LjL/Header. I stole that with minimal changes from User:Xeno's page, and didn't realize it included an administrator category tag. It was never my intention to pose as an administrator, I'm sorry for that. --LjL (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, enjoy your noticeboards. I tried. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
And I replied point by point, which is more than I thought I'd care to do. Feh. --LjL (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
bye. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


There is an RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup -- Rico 16:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work at Zilog Z80[edit]

I don't know what the ratio is between the number of "taggers" who heroically tag articles with "fact" or "unreferenced" or "POV", and who heroically put project banners on talk pages, and the number of editors who actually contribute content - but it's large. A belated "Thank you" for all your work on Zilog z80 in spite of rather unsupportive remarks from a tagger. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Patrick Zuili and friends[edit]

They took my name off the patent (That I invented (Not him)) using my previos patent for Peer to Peer networking. I was introduced to him and they where trying to great a secure email. (I took it further) by making different devices talk with each other and tieing it to the peer to peer. I dont like others taking credit for my work! I dont like taking credits, but I hate people that try too.

Jeffrey Ice, The True Inventor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WCST picture[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to request your help.

I work in neuropsychology. I'm very concerned that a test that is routinely given, the WCST, is compromised by a picture I believe you uploaded to the site.

See link:

Would you remove this picture or assist me in doing so?

This is a very important test, which is routinely given to many patients. I know that your picture is not the WCST exactly, but it is so close to the real test that it's just as compromising as posting an actual picture of the WCST would be. Providing this kind of information compromises my ability to evaluate patients.

I have already edited the Wikipedia article to remove compromising & unethical content, but I'm not sure how to remove the picture.

Can you help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anytree (talkcontribs) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I think I got it figured out!!!! I hope you understand. It's so unlike me to limit information, but this test is just no good when images and information about the method are shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anytree (talkcontribs) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidents[edit]

I undid your deletion once again; what is stated is clearly in the sources given, you can check it. I have now put literal quotes concerning the core claims into the edit comment. Please be constructive and don't simply delete statements. You can use the talk page to voice your concerns and ask others to see if they agree or not. Note that not every single word of every sentence has to match the source completely, it's sufficient if the basic facts are right. Unit 2 is in a very severe condition and it's meaningless to try to hide that fact from the public. --rtc (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

From your history and the wording of your paragraph it seems clear to me that you have an agenda; you may or may not have noticed that, eventually, I did add the valve incident in a way that reflected the source much more closely. Try to make unbiased edits in the future. LjL
Of course I have an agenda, those who say they haven't are lairs. My agenda is neutrality, accuracy and clarity. but I do not claim to be infallible. As I am watching TV/streams while editing the article, I can often add inforamtion before it turns up on the news tickers; sometimes the news tickers put the things in a little bit of a different way, but it's not a reason to remove the sources or completely rewrite the paragraph. The specific paragraph we are discussing about (not written by me, by the way!) was unbiased and reflected the facts as well as the source accurately. Your description of the valve accident was cloudy and unclear. Neutrality does not mean using weasel words. "It was reported" "Other reports say there have been problems" -- that tells us almost nothing. --rtc (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Hey I saw your editing on the CEA-708 page and you seem to know a lot about closed captioning. I am trying to develop an application that can identify television show's CC stream and you might be able to help. If you don't mind, could you email me at your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, -Evan

Evan (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI-report: User:Reisio and letters A to Z[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for informing me. LjL (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)