User talk:LjL

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.

Serbs of Croatia

Good luck dealing with him for a change. At least he won't accuse you of being a sock, and then have a support from an admin who blocks you on his own hand then when I complain he just repeats his allegation, "Yeah that's him", in the very own report I complain about him doing that, and it is somehow established I'm a sock. Well at least you went on looking a bit deeper on this than just listening to his POV. I'm only sorry an admin had allowed himself being manipulated by this user. Go and look for yourself, I'm not the only one that opposed him that he tried to ban, not even in this very own discussion, let alone other discussions. 212.15.177.45 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for me, my account has existed for several years and I don't think I've been involved in editing ex-Yugoslavia-related articles before, so he'd have a hard time accusing me of being a sockpuppet or anything like that. I honestly had no prejudice about his views, and in fact I started out vaguely siding with him because of some assertions made by the person who closed the RfC, but he did a really poor job of convincing me. In fact, he managed to convince me of the opposite thanks to his very quotes. LjL (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I hope you see with what we have been dealing for the last month. If it were his only discussion in this manner. Much like he tried to ban me and another editor from this discussion, by luck I found another of his discussions where he exhibited the same pattern. Go to Yugoslavia article and you will see: [1]. Another editor filed a request, and he opposed. Soon after that admin appeared and he had blocked the user. I had to open a RfC and after a long time he backed down, only after a Serbian editor opposed his view. I found that discussion only by luck, because the editor who posted the last comment in the RfC on Serbs of Croatia started that discussion on Yugoslavia page. I now wonder how much more there are cases like this. 212.15.177.39 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems you will be reported after all. Not as a sock of course, but you "dared" to oppose him. [2]

I tried to warn of this behavior in the review ANI but I was blocked by that admin and my comment was deleted, and you all believed him without question when I reported him.

As I saw from his contributions this had gone on for ages, and that admin seems to follow him around. Well he calles him when he needs someone blocked, which he gladly does, on his own hand, no questions asked. 212.15.177.39 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can see why the other editor who started that discussion didn't want to participate and I hope you can imagine how much I was subjected to personal attacks as an IP when even you as an admin are accused of lying, bad faith, etc...It really isn't a hard job getting an IP banned, even without that admin who does it on his own hand with no reasons in my behavior to do that. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Why not make an account anyway, and stop being an anonymous, "dodgy" IP? That may help. --LjL (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I can't make an account because it would get blocked like my IP's got blocked, without any investigation and without any evidence of my bad behavior. I've edited Wikipedia as an IP for quite some time, and I really didn't have any problems up to few months ago when I bumped into that discussion on Serbs of Croatia. Look at what happened in the report I made. I said "hey this admin is calling me a sock without no reason. I've done nothing wrong" and he says "yep, he is a sock", and no one even questioned it. You've see how long the RfC is and all other accompanying discussions. It's sad I have to fight to get my perfectly normal comments trough only because some user was disruptive in the past. I really do not know what he had done to deserve to be blocked, but I can't shake a feeling of injustice when someone just has to say "yep, that's him let's get him blocked" and no one bothers to ask "what has this ip done"? 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to reflect on your "change in status" claim. I think you are looking at it in a simplified way. Read the source that explains that in great detail. The think is that Yugoslavia went trough a process of dissolution. Every Yugoslav nation (Serbs,Croats,Bosniaks) were a constituent nation of Yugoslavia and as such a constituent nation in every republic. When republics declared independence, the change in status had to occur, since the republics stopped being a part of Yugoslavia. Croats were a constituent nation in Socialist Serbia as much as Serbs were a constituent nation in socialist Croatia, but that was all in the aspect of constituent nation of Yugoslavia. Serbs were not the only constituent nation of Socialist Croatia, every other nation was. For instance Macedonians were also a constituent nation of SRC because they were a constituent nation of Yugoslavia. They also had a change in their status. Also you have to note one thing. The new Croatian constitution did not clarify that Serbs were a national minority. Some of the sources say it correctly. Serbs were put in the same group with other minorities, but not called a minority. The constitution said "and a country of other nations and minorities: Serbs,....". It did not call Serbs a "minority" explicitly. The deal is more complex and all of the sources just make a blunt statements, while only one source elaborates extensively on this question. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I already agreed in the discussion that the status of Serbs had changed form a constituent nation of Yugoslavia to a national minority. That is explained in that source that is being ignored and that is the only source which elaborates on that question , and doesn't just make a statement with no reference to the primary source. There are basically 2 levels here, a constituent nation of Yugoslavia and as such constituent in each republic and a constituent nation in republics specially. The constitution of SRC says in it's first sentence who "constituted it", and it names only Croats. The constitution of Yugoslavia has the same first sentence and it names all Yugoslav nations as the one who constituted Yugoslavia. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My current view of the matter is that we can claim that the status changed, but we can't claim that their rights changed, because sources contradict each other in that regard. A change in status may well be merely symbolic without an effect on rights. LjL (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes there was a change in status. Croatia was leaving Yugoslavia which seized to exist , and Serbs stopped being a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such of SRC. But not only Serbs, other nations of Yugoslavia as well, and Croats in Serbia as well. A change in definitions had to occur since there was a significant change on the field. Yugoslavia was falling apart. Read trough that extensive source in the first post of the RfC. I also hope you see I am being prevented to state this in the discussion. The discussion is one way street where that user is trying to get his way, when I'm blocked from participating with no real reason. What's wrong with my 2 posts to you so they must be prevented from being posted in the discussion? 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are blocked, you should appeal the block, and then you will be entitled to state your opinion again. You may feel like there is no harm in you saying these things, but if you were blocked, the proper thing to do is to have the block removed officially, not to evade it. LjL (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not blocked until this admin had showed and blocked me for no reason. No investigation, and not a single complaint about my behavior. I tried to report him and you've seen what happened. He just repeated that I'm a sock and no one questioned it. I don't think I stand a chance. There is really no way an IP can win against an admin. I just tried to implement the consensus and I was prevented from doing the most legit thing on Wikipedia. You saw what happened when I complained. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What was the user name under which you were blocked?

I had no account so far. Maybe an investigation would show I'm not a sock, but it never got to that. This admin just blocs on his own hand. I'm not too familiar is he is allowed to do that, but I feel it is not fair. That's why when I was prevented from doing the most legit thing on Wikipedia I though someone would actually listed to an ordinary IP, but boy was I wrong. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. I got this RfC noticed and I hope that's enough, although it would be nice if I could post some arguments like the one above, but let's face it , that's not going to happen, so thanks for listening. Bye. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's any comfort, "your" side will probably prevail anyway, since Fkp is along against several people, and apparently he "gave up" now (with their attitude, I honestly can't see how they could have won many sympathies in the long term). It's a shame, because I actually believe it's worth acknowledging the change in status, just not the hypothetical change in rights. I've stated this several times, but Fkp is blinded by the idea that everybody (now including, or even especially, me) is against them and "lying through their teeth"... oh well. LjL (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hardly, God knows what will happen to that article and other articles that editor is editing when I'm now being restricted from editing it. In my opinion I got in this 3 months of discussing him , I think he should be restricted to football related articles. I feel sad this discussion will finish, one way or another, and there are other discussions like this without me present to open a RfC and deal with it for a few months. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah he has that attitude. He actually followed me around trough some discussions and he was really disruptive so I stopped using the same ip in other discussions so he would stop following me around. Look at this case for example.On Novak Djokovic page he objected to a RS of Djokovic stating himself a certain thing. Then he went and entered that to the article. Then another Serbian editor accused him of being to mellow in his POV pushing that he is now playing dumb when he got reverted for no reason. They had a shameful discussion on his talk page [3] and he actually said "We all know Novak is Serbian bla bla". Big argument. We don't "know" here, but go there and move your ass and I shouldn't do all over there. They have a source where Novak himself said those things and you go and find sources to deny that one. ". It's sad he separates people to "them" and "us". "I shouldn't do all over there" is also really troubling. It sounds to me like they are trying to push their view and he is criticizing this other editor because he is doing all the work. 54.158.155.211 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I have blocked this IP you are talking too. They are a sockpuppet of a user who was indef blocked for POV pushing. HighInBC 23:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged. LjL (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck on your continuing discussions on this topic. But it appears to me that a lot of the participants of the RFC are now staying away. This leaves 2 editors and I fear little will be accomplished other than endless debate, which appears to be a pattern. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I'm sorry you and others have been worn out by this (I've been suspecting other editors may also be staying away because of the possibility of "discretionary sanctions"). I am trying to reach a compromise and I think making a statement about "status" but no direct claim about "rights" would be the best achievement. I hope Fkp eventually realizes compromise is part of this. LjL (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting here again, but someone needs to say it. That user is claiming no sources oppose him, which is false. There is a source that opposes and it gives a more elaborate explanation than any of his sources.

To sum it up: There's 2 meanings to the term "constitutive nation." here. One is a constitutive nation of a republic specifically, and the other meaning is a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such constitutive in every republic. That is what the source says and we can't neglect it. On the other hand FkP's sources say just "they lost their constitutive status". Serbs were not a constitutive nation of SRC but they were a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia and as such a constitutive nation of each republic. Yes they had lost their constitutive status as a Yugoslav nation because of the succession process. Croatia also lost their status of a constitutive nation on Serbia, as a Yugoslav nation.

I find it's extremely misleading to say that only Serbs lost their constitutive status. All other Yugoslav nations lost it as well, because of the dissolution process. However the constitutive nation of SRC specifically are only the Croats.

So how to interpret Fkp's sources in the light of this findings? We can't guess what each of the sources is speaking of, of the constitutive status specifically for the republic or a general Yugoslav constitutive status, and none of them defines the term nor references the primary source.

Here's something from the reliable sources: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.". I think 3 months of discussing makes this issue extraordinary. How are we going to deal with it with lightweight sources that do not even define the term they are speaking of, let alone reference the primary source. They just make a statement. Yes, there's a bunch of it, but a bunch of lightweight sources don't really sum up to be a reliable source on an extraordinary matter. FkP is constantly neglecting the source which goes against him and which gives an elaborate explanation of this whole deal. It both defines the term and references the constitution.

I also already spoke of the Badinter's commission. Serb loosing their "constitutive status" was never a legal question. It was never brought before the Badinter's commission. It only appeared in propaganda. I would like to state in the article this. Here's the suggestion. "Although Serbs strongly emphasized the lost of constitutional status, this question was never put before the Badinter's commission". I think that's a pretty big info, since it shows it was never a real question or a legal problem. And as the source explains, this claim was used only to further ignite the war in Croatia.

I also don't know what kind of consensus can be established. The user who started the discussion left because of the disruptive behavior of Fkp. I was banned on his request and others had also left...

I don't think FkP will agree to say that no change in rights had occurred. The whole deal with this "constitutive nation" issue was exactly to point to the loss of rights.

141.136.202.144 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I normally dont reply to known socks when it has been pointed out that they are in fact socks. But Mr puppet, dont you realise that at this point the only thing you can possibly do is hurt accomplishing what you profess to want? Because thats the reality of it. You need to go away, show you are sorry for your actions by staying away, then after an acceptable time appeal the block and swear your never going to do it again. This is the blunt reality of the situation you find yourself in. More posting by you anyplace, even if it has the best evidence and the key to the problem just submerines exactly what you say you want, and lessens the chance that you will ever be able to be an editor ever again. AlbinoFerret 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Appeal the block, don't try to edit "through me". LjL (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have "appealed". I reported an admin for telling everyone I'm a sock, and it didn't really help. They just asked "who's sock", not even dealing with my report. I'm sorry I had posted here but I just want it's seen that someone put those arguments to the table. I'm interested on editing Wikipedia, and not on dealing with this things you suggest. Maybe it's my fault for not making a report the first time they said I'm a sock, but I don't think that would have helped. My position is that I've done nothing wrong and I why would I need to prove I'm not a sock, it should be the other way around. I simply won't be pushed into dealing with this than editing Wikipedia. There are plenty more articles where this admin is not present, and I really have no problems there, as no one is accusing me of anything. I'm sorry I posted here, but If I wasn't concentrated on the discussion but on battling with empty accusations there would never be a RfC, and this editor would once again have his way, since the editor who started this had left because of the disruptive behavior by fkp. I will continue to "participate" in good faith, since I really don't deal in personal attack and someone saying "you are a sock" is nothing more than a personal attack. The fact that an admin is doing that, makes no difference. He is free to make a report. The fact that he is an admin gives him the power to ban me without any report and since he is abusing his privilegies as an admin and making a personal attack into bans I feel that gives me the right to use proxies. I simply don't accept personal attacks and I don't answer them. I haven't answered them in the discussion and I won't bother on accepting them as something more than personal attacks by appealing as a sock. 212.15.176.13 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the last source about the Badinter's commission. I was pointing to that a long time ago. This wasn't really a legal question. It wasn't in the dispute by the parties. Badinter's commission was established to deal with exactly this kind of questions and this question was not put before it. Have you read the source from the top of the RfC? It explains all how this "constitutive nation" question was used only as a part of propaganda. I would like to include that last source in the article because that's a pretty important info. It clearly makes a differance to know that this wasn't a legal question nor any kind of dispute between the parties. 212.15.178.142 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you have changed the support comment on the review. I am staying away from that section right now. But I will point out something you may have missed by not reading the RFC. The wording that was part of the consensus, which I probably should have copied into this close is this. "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[1]" So there was a statement that contained the things you are saying were left out. Live and learn is one thing I try to do, and in the future if wording is part of the consensus, I will be adding it to the close. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The main reason why I changed the comment is that, while looking for more sources on Google Books, I've realized that the wording involving a "change in (constitutional) status" is virtually unescapable. It's mentioned everywhere. So I think the article really should state that there was a change in status - whether it's significant or not, whether it had any impact on rights, whether other ex-Yugoslavian countries also implemented similar changes, and whether or not the old and/or new statuses ("constituent nation" vs "national minority") had been rigorously defined.

We can't ignore what every source on earth affirms and none deny. "Rights", on the other hand, is different. LjL (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Which constitutive status defined by the only source that defines and explains the term in the context of Yugoslav constitution? Can I ask you, have you read the relevant quotes from the primary source? At the time of constitutionsl changes, Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia, so a special care was taken not to call anyone a minority. Some sources say Serbs were called a minority, but read the primary source for yourself. It's quoted in the RfC. 212.15.177.134 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslavia was a federal republic. This means its constituents, had each its own Constitution, including SR Croatia. So, the Constitution of Croatia changed, it didn't just replace the Constitution of Yugoslavia. That's my understanding, at least. LjL (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The new constitution was brought while Croatia was still a part of yugoslavia and as such couldn't and didn't call any Yugoslav nation a national minority. Read the quote provided in the RfC212.15.177.134 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the new Constitution of SR Croatia could do, but I know what it did do: "the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of its national minorities: Serbs [...]". Which quote exactly are you referring to? LjL (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't know what it did do ;) because you are looking at the wrong constitution. ;) If you have read the discussion this kind of mistakes wouldn't happen, so please read it when you have time before you make your stand. Luckily I'm here to help. At least read that only secondary source which defines the term and references the primary source. It's on the beggining of the RfC. I pointed several times to it, but I can see you still haven't read it since it contains this quote from the right constitution and not the later versions.

Here is the same sentence from the 1990's constitution:

"The Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the national state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of other nations and minorities which are its citizens: Serbs [...]"

To repeat my earlier statement, Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia and as such it couldn't and didn't call any Yugoslav nation to be a minority. That simply could not have been done according to the Yugoslav constitution. Again, read that secondary source which gives a much wider explanation. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That wording is only found on that very Wikipedia page and one book I can see on Google Books and which I cannot ascertain whether it's talking about the actual 1990 Constitution, or a draft (there were more than one drafts with changes in that wording), or an older Constitution. Same with your source, which I cannot verify anyway. LjL (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm again repeating. That's because none of those sources reference the primary source. That the problem I was pointing the whole time. Again the secondary source presented by another user contains that quote. I also can find the constitution if you don't believe that secondary source. I already had found it and I already have confirmed that is the sentence from 1990' constitution few month ago. Here is the constitution: [4]. It's unfortunately on Croatian, but you look for the sentence "Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskoga naroda i država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova i drugih, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava u skladu s demokratskim normama OUN i zemalja slobodnoga svijeta.". Maybe you can ask FkP to assist you translate it. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That is more convincing. Do we have definite evidence that was the final constitution from 1990 and it wasn't revised in 1990 into a different text? LjL (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not more convincing. This is a primary source and we already have the secondary source in the RfC which directly uses this quote during it's elaboration of the whole deal. I don't know what do we need more than a secondary source which references this sentence and says that is from the 1990'c constitution, but if you are doubtful, that link if from the official Croatian newspaper. I went to the archive to the date the constitution was brought: 22.12.1990. and clicked on "Croatian constitution", so no this is not a draft. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is why I strongly insisted that a source reference the primary source. I still stand by my stand that no quantity of lightweight sources can't have more value than a source that does reference the primary source and the source that explains the term "consitutive nation" in the context of the Yugoslav constitution which itself does not contain that term. Your claim that we can state something sources say, but do not define is wrong. We could do that if there were no sources that define the term and that oppose the first group of sources that do not define it. Furthermore the source explains that there are 2 possible meanings to "constitutive nation" and other sources which do not define the term are speaking of it as it has one meaning. That is a second big problem. If a term has 2 possible meanings sources that do not define it are even more useless. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am very convinced that we can state "something sources say, but do not define". Wikipedia is full of that, and properly so. LjL (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm against that, since we can see for ourselves what the primary source says, and none of those sources reference the primary source. In the situation when the source that does reference the primary source says otherwise we can't use the sources that do not reference the primary source as equal. Especially not when we can read for ourselves that Serbs are not called a national minority in the primary source. I already said. Those sources have 0 scientific value. It is obvious they are claiming incorrect things and it is very convenient that they do not reference the primary source, isn't it? Of course they can't reference a sentence from the constitution which would deny their whole claim. You are free to compare this sentece with the earlier sentence from the SRC'c constitution, or just read what the secondary source from the RfC says by comparing these sentences, if you would not like to do original research.141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is unrelated to stating something sources say but do not define. "Defining" is about describing the meaning of "constituent nation" and/or "national minorities". This is different from referencing sources. Anyway, how come even European sources that claim the Serbs' right did not change acknowledge that there was a change in "status"? LjL (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's one problem that something isn't defined, but when the other source says that there are 2 forms of that something than we have a much bigger problem because it is not specified nor defined. We can't know of which of those 2 forms the source is speaking, not only that we can't say about what it is speaking. I really wouldn't go into why some sources say incorrect things. I can just speculate. One reason would probably be that they haven't actually studied the constitution. Some may have, like you, looked at the wrong constitution, and so on. We can't say why they claim something that seems to be incorrect when we do not know what that they are speaking of actually is nor we have a single reference to the primary source. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "it was brought to your attention". Look, it was said a long time ago, and this discussion you had with that user is pretty much one way street. He is perfectly aware of that info. User who started this had left because, as he said, of the disruptive behavior by Fkp. Others also left, I can only speculate to why....I would be surprised if he would actually go into that discussion since he refused to do it earlier, but let's see. This isn't a new thing, but one of the things taken into consideration when the discussion was closed by AlbinoFerret. Please read the discussion yourself because this is going nowhere when that kind of things were just "brought to you attention". I know it's hard, but we all have lost a considerable amount of time with this user who won't back down. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of sources I have seen on Google Books (not just Fkp's ones) that claim a change in status, so it's not so easy to brush it all of as it all being just Fkp's whims. LjL (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But he didn't want to discuss in good faith at all, and he completely neglects that source that opposes him. He's still repeating that no sources oppose him while the most valuable source opposes him. Not only the most valuable but the only one which defines the term and which references the constitution. 141.136.234.160 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just another note you may not be aware of. I saw some sources stating an incorrect sentence from SRC's constitution. It says that: "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities who live within it". Some sources leave out all other and that is kinda important because all subjects are in equal position in this sentence. No one is having any more special status if it is mentioned explicitly or grouped with "all others". That is never done in the constitutions. I hope you realize that this sentence is not speaking of any constitutive status it simply states who's state it is. However even in this sentence SRC is stated to be a "national state" of Croats. You are free to compare it to that other sentence from 1990 constitution. The first part of the sentence is the same it states that Croatia is a "national state of the Croatian nation". The second part then expands all others and mentions Serbs with others. That in no was is any degrading of status as all subjects in that sentence have the same status. Croatia is still a national state of Croatian nation and it is still a state of Serbian nation, and Slovene nation, and Macedonian nation and Hungarian national minority and...By expanding all others Serbs were not the only nation that was specially mentioned, yes, but that is not changing their status. Croatia is still a state of Serbian nation as it was before. If anyone's position was changed that would be all others that now got explicitly mentioned, but as I said just from the linguistic point of view, all subjects are equal in that sentence. The definition "national state" defines the special status, but not constitutive status as such. If we are going to talk about a sentence that defines someone as a constitutive nation, that would be the first sentence in the constitution which defines solely Croats as the ones who established SRC. So there are more incorrect claims in that sentence: 1. Serbs were not called a national minority. 2. Serbs had no constitutive status in SRC specifically but they had as one of Yugoslav nations. I'm not making this up, but I'm telling you what the secondary source from the RfC says. I want to thank you again for listening to valid arguments. FkP could have told you that info since he was aware of it, but he is concentrated onto presenting his point of view, while no editors who previously discussed are there and I can't be because of the known reasons. 89.164.161.235 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I reviewed that last source in the post at 14:33, 23 October 2015. Let me quote the source:"Serbs living in Croatia had been members of constituent nation while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia". This source actually goes against Fkp. It very well says that 1990' constitution did not change the status of the Serbs. In 1990 Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia, and this source perfectly clearly says that Serbs were a constitutive nation of Croatia while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia. The constitution of 1990 had not changed anyone's status. As I explained earlier (repeated what the secondary source from the RfC says) Serbs were a constituent nation of SRC as a constitutive Yugoslav nation, much like Croats were a constitutive nation of Serbia as a constitutive nation of Yugoslavia. But Serbs were not a constitutive nation of Croatia specifically. I posted the first sentence from the constitution which clearly names who constituted SRC. 141.136.246.240 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of all this. Yes, we all know that Croatia was part of Yugoslavia before Yugoslavia dissolved (duh). It still was its own entity with its own Constitution; that it, in turn, was part of Yugolavia is inconsequential. It was also a part of Yugoslavia in 1990, so no difference there either. --LjL (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I got tired a long time ago, but what can I do, quit? Do you see what kind of ways I have to find so Wikipedia is edited in the proper and objective way? You know, I edit other articles as well, an no one is accusing me of anything, only when I come to deal with this Croatia-Serbian high tension articles I get accused by Serbian editors of various things. But what can I do. I'm interested in former Yugoslavia and I can't run away from my interests. To answer this. There are 2 constitutions that affect SRC. It's own and Yugoslavia's and that is why we have a constitutive nation of Yugoslav lever and a constitutive nation of each republic's level. Serbs were a constitutional nation of Yugoslav level, however none of the sources define what they mean by saying "constitutional nation" republic's or Yugoslav's level, and they do not reference the constitution so we really don't know from which one the source draws its term "constitutional". We can use other sources to interpret this one correctly and the other sources say Serbs were constitutional on Yugoslav level but not on SRC's level. I'm really just repeating myself for months because that other editor is not willing to discuss in good faith. He dodges questions and valid points and he is just concentrated in pushing his own view. I told you he won't participate in the last section you started. I don't blame you are getting tired, we all are. The editor who started this left a long time ago, because, as he said, of disruptive behavior of FkP. Other editors also left and I'm the only one who is trying to bring some objectivity to the discussion. It's not surprising POV pushers get their way since no one wants to get involved in several months of discussing. You are lucky, you can leave now and you haven't wasted much time. I wouldn't blame you if you did. Especially if it's not a topic that interests you. I'm very interested in it, but unfortunately I don't have anyone to discuss it with, since that other editor is not willing to discuss. If you leave I might as well since I'm prevented from everything. I really wouldn't want to mess up your talk board when you leave this discussion, so I really won't have anywhere else to post. Luckily they don't seem to protect other people's talk boards so I'm happy I can leave a trace of arguments. That's all I'm interested in really. The article can state various things but if someone is interested in this topic and want to know something about it, he is really interested in arguments and not statements. That's why I find those sources that just make a statement to be of no value.141.136.246.240 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to correct yet another incorrect claim. One of the sources says "More to the point, constituent peoples enjoyed the right of secession", which is totally incorrect, because Badinter's commission was asked this question and it was determined that only republics have the right of the succession. [5]. Note also one more important thing. It was asked: "Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?". It was not asked if they as a constituent people of Croatia/Bosnia have that right. This is very significant, because the question was asked by the Serb side and even they had said "constituent peoples of Yugoslavia". If Serbs were constituent people of Croatia that would be even more favorable to ask for the right of succession, but even the Serb side knew that is not true. I again repeat that this was never a legal question. As the source says, it was used only in propaganda. Fkp is making a claim with some source and Director had explained it is wrong but I feel Badinter's commission is a better argument that his source is simply wrong. I also want to note that we also went trough this in the RfC, so FkP is aware of the Badinter commissions's conclusion on this matter. He neglects everything he doesn't agree with and just continues to push his point of view.141.136.216.242 (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you've been fair so I won't go to edit warring with you. However, that is still the established consensus. It's not "my" consensus. I don't understand, what will become of it. It would really be a rare case that a consensus is prevented from entering the article. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing, even though I've relented from it a bit, between Fkp and User:Director. You can see also that I tagged (and re-tagged after a gratuitous revert) the "status" part as disputed. But at the same time, there is no need to pour further fuel on the fire by means of having a blocked editor unilaterally rewrite the whole section. LjL (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but the part I entered I did not unilaterally write. It's written in the RfC's closure as the established consensus [6]. Ok, would you enter it to the article if the review of the formal closure confirms the consensus? 141.136.216.242 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote it now makes it much more problematic for me to enter it, because by policy, I cannot make edits at the direction of a blocked editor. I think it's an interesting case of WP:BOOMERANG... LjL (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll still support that the consensus enters the article. I will probably go to ANI. It's not "my" consensus and it's not invalid if I point to it. I'm not really interested in this accusations that I'm a sock. I'm interested in editing Wikipedia and that's what I have been doing, without any complaints against my behavior. At least you didn't have to revert me. I'm afraid that you going by the rules will leave other's who are trying to prevent the consensus have their way. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr Puppet, it has been pointed out to you that you can only hinder anything you want to accomplish. LjL has just told you exactly that. Even if you bring forth the right thing to do, by presenting it, you make it impossible to recommend. Please stop involving yourself in the topic. AlbinoFerret 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Again POV pushing. The claim "that means Croatia was no longer a land of Croats and Serbs, but just Croats" is incorrect. The constitution says "the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of other nations and minorities: Serbs [...]". Also, he's constantly repeating fallacies. He's constantly drawing attention that this sentence in the constitution is the one speaking of "constitutive status" while none of his sources have a single reference to the constitution nor any definition of the "constitutive nation" he is speaking of. 141.136.216.242 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You said :"The only difference is that, for Croats, it is the "national" state", which is not exactly correct. It's not the difference since the SRC's constitution says: "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities". However I repeat again, this is not speaking of constitutive statuses. The first sentence of the constitution which speaks of who constituted SRC's does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.216.242 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry I'm to blame for the personal attacks you are getting. [7]. I could only imagine what would happen if you entered that consensus which I have pointing to. Nice move for not doing that. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[8], Director is right. I was putting it in more nicely when I was speaking of this issue not being a real legal issue in the 90'. I would only like to add that the Badinter's commission had reviewed the question and established that only republics have the right of succession.91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What's this problem with finding the 1990 constitution you are having. Maybe I could help. I posted a link to the final version of the constitution. I searched the archive for the date it was brought so there's no doubt I posted a link to the final version. I'm not aware of any reference to the drafts, no I have seen them in the discussions. SRC's constitution is also pretty much well referenced. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[9], it's amazing how he is still repeating that no sources oppose him when I listed all sources on the top of the RfC and the source that opposes him had so extensive elaboration that other editors had put it in that collapse tag. Even his own sources oppose him and he is still pushing a claim that no source oppose him. 89.164.236.170 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this [10]. Serbs were explicitly mentioned before and so are in the new constitution. The fact that "others" got explicitly mentioned does not impact Serbs in any way. Both Serbs and others were mentioned in equal position in SRC's constitution. That other user asked why the change. If we would to speculate, maybe it was decided that others deserve to be mentioned as well so they don't feel left out;). I'm also repeating this is not the sentence that speaks of constitutive statuses. However in this sentence and in the sentence which is speaking of constitutive status, Croats are separated from the others by additional terms like "national state" and "along with". This user is separating them and the Serbs on the explicit mentioning and that is really wrong. No rights are ever derived from explicit mentioning. Serbs and the others are in equal position in both constitutions, the change is that the others now got explicitly mentioned. It's all in that source from the first post in the RfC, to quote: "and the only difference is that other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us to the conclusion that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned.". 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I might be starting to understand why you're all always at war in the Balkans. LjL (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Who? 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not always warring. Several wars had happened, Slovenia-Serbia, Croatia-Serbia, Bosnia-Serbia, Kosovo-Serbia, NATO-Serbia, but that's hardly warring ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.236.170 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events

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?

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.

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+the+mind+works&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

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.

VS

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

VS

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Italian language

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

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

Re this edit [11] to Internet Relay Chat, as of revision 258665623 where {{morefootnotes}} was added [12] 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)

Indents

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)

Disambiguation

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)

Thanks

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

On Manuel Zelaya dispute

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[13] 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

References

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

You made a good call here. Keep up your good work.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pandeism

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, http://books.google.com/books?id=viE7AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA16&dq=pandeismo 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)

http://landley.net/history/mirror/intel/faggin.html

Z80 et al.

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 [14] [15] 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 [16] 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 [17]
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Air Traffic Controller (video game)

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? OhanaUnited^{Talk 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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)

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

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)

ISBN-10/13

Re [18] 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 [19] 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

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)

ANI

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

Rorscharch

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)

Note

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, –xeno^talk

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. –xeno^talk 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rosecharacter test

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

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 69.225.251.134

This IP has begun to sign "lysdexia" on User talk:69.225.251.134, 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?

You seem to be inadvertently adding random characters to the top business, i.e. [20] [21] [22] [23] . 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, –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090731/rorschach_090731/20090731?hub=TopStories ? --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: http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam –xeno^talk 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

Hey LJL you are mentioned here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=answers-to-the-rorschach-test-revea-09-08-02 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)

RfC

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

Psychological test

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

		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

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

Stubs Zilog Z380 May Memory map TI-80 December June TI-73 series Poisoned J True north COMPUTE!'s Gazette Trieste Syntax Ganz CyberGraphX BDS C National Party of Honduras Meta key Skid (aerodynamic)

Cleanup Friulian language Romance copula Sardinian language Merge Animal language Quechua SAMPA chart Add Sources Machine code monitor SAM Coupé Classical Latin Wikify In-circuit emulator Metro-Cross Atkins v. Virginia Expand 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

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manuel_Zelaya#it_was_not_a_Coup_d.27_Etat 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)

Honduras

what 80.223.214.74 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honduras#Honduras_President 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

¿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)

Tú 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)

Sorry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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. --M^ask? 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

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)

Provoking

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 [24] (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:[25] 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: [26], 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)

RfC

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

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

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 65.12.203.167 (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WCST picture

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WisconsinCardSort.png

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidents

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)

CEA-708

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 evan_thomas@umail.UCSB.edu 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

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)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to R may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• *𝐑𝐫 𝑅𝑟 𝑹𝒓 𝖱𝗋 𝗥𝗿 𝘙𝘳 𝙍𝙧 ℛ𝓇 𝓡𝓻 ℜ𝔯 𝕽𝖗 𝚁𝚛 ℝ𝕣 : Unicode font variants for use as mathematical symbols ([[Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to S may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• *{{IPA|ʃ}} : [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA}} [[Esh (letter)|Esh]], used for the [[voiceless postalveolar fricative]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to H may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

• [Etruscan language|Etruscan]] and [[Latin]] had {{IPA|/h/}} as a [[phoneme]] but almost all [[Romance languages]] lost the sound—
• |digraphs]], such as {{angbr|ch}} {{IPAc-en|tʃ|}}, {{IPAc-en|ʃ}}, {{IPAc-en|k}}, or {{IPAc-en|x}}), {{angbr|gh}} (silent, {{IPA|/ɡ/}}, {{IPA|/k/}}, {{IPA|/p/}}, or {{IPA|/f/}}), {{angbr|ph}} ({{IPA|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Digraph and Sum (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) 10:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted links on Amiga

Hi Ljl,

Nice to meet you.

I must admit, I was not involved with Amiga, so please excuse me, if I touched your turf.

But then, please explain, why you did deleted my addition.

I believe that this is historically relevant. This is a contemporary article from the press at that time, actually a defining article explaining the differences between mac and amiga, I simply do not understand why you did delete my additons, because I believe that this really adds a tremendous amount of info and insight of the historical situation at that time. Please explain your rational.

I'd like to ask you to revert your deletion of my edit, or even better though, add to it!

~eike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edx (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I do not doubt that the content in your addition is interesting per se; it's just that I personally (but I think I share this view with many other Wikipedians) tend to be on the strict side about external links on Wikipedia, because they tend to proliferate a lot ending up in never-ending and open-ended lists of links. How much material there is about the Amiga? A lot, I can assure you. We can link to official pages (by Commodore, Amiga Inc. and so on), those are generally appropriate. We can source a lot of material without making it part of the external links. We can also add a limited number of extremely significant third-party links that are directly and solely about the subject of the article. Your link already fails one of these criteria: a comparison with the Apple Macintosh? Why the Mac specifically? Should we then put the same link in the Apple Macintosh article too? (Oh, I can assure the editors there would have objections!).

If you still think the link belongs there, I suggest you place it on the article's talk page with a request for other editors to evaluate it and include it if they deem it relevant enough. I will respect the consensus, although personally I'm still oriented against inclusion. LjL (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Weasel wording at vowel

Hi Ljl,

Problem with removing the weasel wording and simply saying there's a conflict is that at the end of the paragraph we conclude that there is no conflict. Maybe you can think of a better way of putting it that wouldn't sound so weasely, but we should avoid contradicting ourselves. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is an internal conflict. The lengthy discussion of [j] and [w] (which, by the way, should probably be moved out of the lede as it simply clutters it a lot and doesn't belong in a general introduction) is a specific issue related to this, but the problem comes also with, say, the mentioned [l]: is it a consonant or is it a vowel? Usually it is a consonant, but in some cases it acts as the nuclesus of a syllable, so under that definition of vowel, it is a vowel when used as such. This should be acknowledged as a fact stemming from the dual definition. LjL (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you there. The same is true with [ɹ], [r] and nasal stops. The way it was worded, though, it seemed to be contradicting itself. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is just too much of a fuss in the lede about [j] and [w]. I think maybe we should make a section about this vocoid terminology and explain it there, while simply mentioning in the lede that "vowel" can have the two slightly different meanings depending on context. LjL (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved it to a separate section as a start. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the lede looks much better now. LjL (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

hi

ur nice and cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.124.100 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you! LjL (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to "Common Era"

Judging by the quotes that you provided, your edit to "Common Era" does not provide adequate citations. The citations support the idea that AD refers to "Our Lord" or some similar phrase, but does not establish that this served as motivation for Jewish scholarship to change to CE/BCE. --signing for User:Jc3s5h

It wasn't intended as such, but just to support the statement that it refers to Jesus as Lord, which is the sentence that came immediately before the "citation needed" tag. I see you've now also requested a citation for the statement before that one, which is fine with me. LjL (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

English language

Hi LjL. You made a good point at the AN/I noticeboard. I thought that I had included the word "comprehension" when referring to Keysanger's use of English. I provided Neil a good example of it ("An example of a problem..."). Basically, paraphrasing and summarizing sources in any language requires that the individual have an adequate (i.e., competent) understanding of the language. I am assuming good faith in Keysanger's misunderstanding of sources; otherwise, he is doing these things on purpose. Regardless, thank you again for the comment—I will make sure to fix it!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that sort of misinterpretation of sources you present in the example is something that a native English speaker could very easily fall into, and if you put it down to "English skills", you might not attract much sympathy (although yes, technically even a native speaker can lack "English comprehension"; I just wouldn't put it that way). LjL (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand. I see now that it was insensitive of me to write it the way I did; thank you for opening my eyes. I will edit the proposal accordingly.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I find it interesting that you can write (but not speak) English. I have a friend who can write and read Arabic, but he can't speak it either (or, at least he isn't well-understood). My French speaking is also not on par with my writing/reading. Monolinguals usually don't understand the complexity of being multilingual. [:)]--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've spent many years communicating in various ways on the Internet (mostly in English, just a little in Italian), but only in writing. At this point there are many technical or semi-technical topics where I find myself lacking words in Italian, even though I know them in English, but when it comes to speaking (and understanding spoken) English, well, I've tried and it turns out I can more or less do it, but it's just a tad embarrassing. LjL (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I've also had that experience with English. It's the listening part that gets complicated. I've been using Duolingo recently to sharpen my French listening; it's surprisingly helpful. Language is an art that takes lots of practice—much in the same way as most learning in general (albeit it's not as easy to practice speaking, even with the emergence of the Internet). Please let me know if I can ever be of help to you here in WP.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Computational informatics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian (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) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your last edit in Asturix

I agree that the sentence " against 300 competitors under-18 years old" is awkward, but your edit removes information from the article. That is, that he won in the "teen" category, and that there were 300 competitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.42.149 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@81.35.42.149: there is nothing saying that superfluous information can't be removed from an article. The article is not about him, nor about the price; the article is about a Linux distribution. Saying that its original creator won a prize might be worthwhile, but detailing how many participants there were and how old they were seems completely out of place. If people really want to know, anyway, they can click on the linked source and find out. --LjL (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Book numbers in citations

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System you write: "There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate the entire citation each time (or we change the article to Harvard referencing, which I don't even like)."

I agree, I don't like Harvard referencing either. The simplest solution is using the {{rp}} template to append page number(s) after each ref tag. There are some other choices at Help:References and page numbers. -- intgr [talk] 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I should have known about that template; last time I stumbled upon a problem like this, I was trying to provide different quotations (usually provided by a single "quote=" paramters) for similar references, not just different page numbers, which are easier to provide as they are clearly a more compact piece of information. By the way, the !vote is appreciated. LjL (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey! I just wanna thank you for your help in Asturix. A lot of work must be done in the article, but your contribution is helping a lot! --Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my application. LjL (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversial source

Sorry, but I can't recognized this report of US departament Bulgaria 2015 Crime and Safety Report, which you added in Sofia as reliable source. The information is too controversial and too different than official statistics of Bulgarian and European agences. It's government source for another country and can be influenced by political bias. I deleted this following WP:NPOV and WP:No original research.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stolichainin: If you actually read WP:NPOV and linked articles, you will find that it doesn't talk about suppressing sources, but about presenting a balanced summary of sources. If two sources are conflicting, we present both and attribute them. That "you don't recognize" a source just means that, you don't recognize it. Other editors disagree. And in any case, that is no justification to blank an entire section, as I've explained to you in the warning on your talk page. WP:NOR, on the other hand, doesn't apply at all, since it is about research that Wikipedia editors do, not about research that sources do. As I said, please don't throw guidelines that don't apply at random. You also threw WP:UNDUE, but that says to avoid giving undue weight, not to give no weight at all to something as basic as crime statistics. That Wikipedia is not a newspaper is also not a justification, as crime statistics aren't "news" at all, and anyway Wikipedia does report news - read what the essay actually says, not what you think it says. And anyway, let's discuss this in the proper place, not on my talk page. LjL (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to ask you to stop your edits in this article. It's article in encyclopedia, not a evening news! If you hate Sofia by some reason it's your problem! No need to write whatever bullshits there. Thank you!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stolichanin: Tone down your language on my talk page. I don't hate Sofia, you seem to be the one wanting to suppress factual information about that city. You should stop immediately. You are well past the WP:3RR and you were reported for that, nevermind asked numerous times to stop this. LjL (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The crime exist in London too, but nowhere in their article is mentoined about that. But in WP exist article Crime in London, where all things are good explained. You just can to create an article Crime in Sofia and to add this info there. What is the problem?--Stolichanin (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There is not nearly enough information yet to create a separate article (despite your ludicrous WP:UNDUE claims), and such an article would have to be wikilinked from Sofia anyway (I have no idea why the one about London isn't, I might fix that). In any case, this debate is about Sofia and its specifics, not about other cities. Well, it's not really a debate, but let's call it a debate. LjL (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stolichanin: you will be pleased to know that I have now expanded the section about police and crime, and linked to the main article on London. LjL (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment.

Hi LjL, I have replied to your question on the Administrator's page. Thanks for commenting. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That funny smell

	Air Freshener
	Perhaps this will help remove the smell of Socks. :) AlbinoFerret 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime in Sofia

Hello, Ljl!

I'm sorry if I'm offended you! Because the text raised during the last days, I remove it to the new article Crime in Sofia, where the all POVs were represented. I want to ask you, it may be better to add some link to the new article, but where exactly. May be in the beginning of section "Government and low"?--Stolichanin (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The (short) length of the section does not currently warrant creating a separate article for it, and even if at some point enough material were available for a separate article, there would be no reason not to provide a summary of it inside the main Sofia article. That's how it's usually done: a section, with a {{main|Secondary Article}} template, and then a summary of the secondary article's contents. In any case, I strongly suggest you stop removing the section without consensus for now. LjL (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be very useful, because it will stoped the edit wars in this article and the editors can to concentrated over the work there.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Or you could concentrate on the work there, if you want, without censoring relevant material out of articles. Seriously, how crime rates in a city may not be considered relevant in the city's article is way beyond me. LjL (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm living in this city from 24 years and believe me, many of represented sources gives a too controversial and disputed information. Many of them are of newspaper or tabloids origin and sometimes representing wrong interpretations of some facts. The question is very specific and I suggest from the beginning to remove that material in new article like in London and Crime in London. Sorry, but claims like "the capital of corruption of Europe" seems very...excited!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Check out one of the first sentences in WP:V (one of the core policies): "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.". Your personal experience in Sofia can't be considered a reliable source; we can, of course, discuss particular sources' reliability, but the fact in itself that something on Wikipedia is sourced from a newspaper doesn't make Wikipedia a newspaper (in fact, a lot of material on Wikipedia is sourced from reputable newspapers). LjL (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources were representing in Talk page, but you just ignore them. And what is the problem to create a new article about that. It's a normal policy in WP. In the new article you can to developed the questions and the content, because Sofia is overview article. Detail info can be find in Crime in Sofia. --Stolichanin (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really starting to think you are not here to make an encyclopedia, but just to silence potentially negative information about things like "your" city. Anyway, I encourage you to keep the discussion on the RfC page, not here. LjL (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have really think you are here to create a negative image to Sofia, maybe following some nationalistic or political bias. Look, I make a compromise to you as I just copied the content in new article to devoloped this and the last think you can say about me is I'm censor. Maybe you are needed by more patience and to make a compromise too.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You should have discussed and reached some reasonable compromise long ago instead of furthering your by-now-pretty-obvious nationalistic bias about not wanting to show any of your city's negative aspects. I'm done discussing with your here. Talk on the article's talk page, if anywhere. I will revert any further edits to my talk page. Enough of this nonsense. LjL (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mediation

I am going to ask for a mediation there. Sorry, I can provide a series of atitudes of yours trought this entire process that clearly show you are lacking imparciality there. Why, I dont know. But seems enough. We are not getting anywhere with you ignoring secundary sources and engaging in WP:OR and your own interpretation of the Cosntitution. FkpCascais (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is allowed to make own interpretations of the primary source in the discussion page as far as I'm aware. However, you also said I'm making OR when in fact I was repeating what the secondary source say, so you really don't know what OR is. It's not repeating the secondary source and it's interpretations of the primary source. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. OR is not okay in articles, it can be entertained on talk pages to discuss an issue. But FkpCascais has clearly gone into rage mode again. It even shows through the change in amount of typos and so on. LjL (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, a check on imparciality then: tell me: diff. Couse till now, all you have been doing was finding ways to make me wrong. Lets see now. FkpCascais (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am here User:LjL, now tell me, imposing their religion is not lowering their rights?FkpCascais (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP

Would you consider taking your discussions with the block evading IP to a forum outside of Wikipedia? E-mail or IRC would work well. The reason is that the user is not allowed to post on Wikipedia. It would be a lot easier to continue the conversation if the other side was not constantly being blocked and reverted. HighInBC 00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, at least here the fact we're communicating is transparent. You can see above that I explicitly refused to make edits following his directions, but that's already complicated enough when other people can see what he tells me; gets hairier when they can't. But maybe I can solve this by telling Mr IP that I'm not communicating with them anymore? 'cause this entire situation has got well beyond my amount of giving a damn about Croatia. LjL (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are acting by proxy for the user, nor was that what I meant to suggest. I also have very little interest in Croatia and am experiencing a similar exasperation with this issue. As far as I know there is no rule against you responding to the IP, my comment was more a suggestion to avoid the constant game of Whac-a-mole that is going on here. Your argument for transparency does make sense. I will leave it to your own judgement but will continue to revert and block this user until they address their indef block. HighInBC 00:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's well beyond anyone's amount of time. That's why people left. They got fed up with Fkp and now there's no one left to implement the consensus. It's hard dealing with disruptive editors, I know. I wouldn't blame you if you left as others did. I'll try to make less trouble to you. I apologize again. I really don't know why this admin is telling everyone I'm a sock, but that's ok. I'm ignoring it as I would with any other personal attack from a random user. It's only pointing out how admins have their word believed and how Wikipedia is just another place where people battle for influence. I don't guess someone would beleived me if I told that this admin is a sock of FkP. ;) 89.223.47.218 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How can you not be a sock when you changed like two dozen IPs? That's pretty much the definition of it. Admins are doing their job. You are not going by the rules - that's your choice, but don't complain about the consequences. LjL (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What pisses me off is seing all time LjL giving more credit to this nationalist lunatic IP that the sources I presented. I provide 20 sources saying "Serbs lost constitutive nation status", the IP comes here directing LjL how to challenge me, and there they go, "lets ignore 20 sources and do what IP sugests"... For God sake, the IP was blocked because is a nationalist lunatiic, the guardian of all of Croatia and Croats... FkpCascais (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you're currently coming across as much less of a lunatic? I've seen some of what the IP has told me, I've seen what User:Director has been saying as well, and they have some good points. You can have an army of sources all saying one thing, but the Croatian Constitution, as much of a primary source as it may be, is there for everyone to read (except it's a bit hard to find out which one is the 1990 draft, which the 1990 final, which the old 1974 one, which the 2001 revision...). You're not seeing the giant in front of you. LjL (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So the 3 of you know to read better the Constitution than 20 scholars? Dont joke! You cant compare me to them at all. FkpCascais (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. LjL (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are breaking rules LjL, and not just one. Wikipedia:Verifiability to start with. Dont let yourself go intoo that path. I will remind you WP:TRUTH. Stop Wikiloyering. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of breaking rules feel free to do it at ANI on the relevant report. LjL (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Smart Filesystem (SFS)

Hi, I see you haven't been active on Wikipedia for a long time, but I thought I'd try informing you anyway that the Smart File System article is up for deletion, and has been relisted twice. I guess you may be too directly involved to endorse or oppose the deletion, but I thought perhaps you might have comments to make or know of sources to add. LjL (talk)

The only other "source" there is, is at: http://hjohn.home.xs4all.nl/SFS/ written by me and left up only for nostalgic reasons. It's an older source, and doesn't cover any changes since it was made public domain.

It's nice that Wikipedia wants to link to sources, but sometimes there just aren't any (don't expect SFS to be mentioned in books or other media). The article on SFS was written by me a long time ago, and I guess as the original programmer of the software it can't get more authoritive than that. The information in the article is still accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hendrikx (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That source (your site) is already mentioned in the article. It may seem counterintuitive but for Wikipedia, the fact that you're the author makes what you wrote less authoritative as a source in a way. SFS is actually mentioned in books (and some magazines), though! Just passing mentions, apparently not enough to sway the deleters. But see the current article. Anyway, we'll see how it goes: two people who were for deletion already changed their mind, and I reckon there is only the original nominator and one other person (who gave no serious justifications) who are for deletion. I'm not sure why the article keeps getting relisted: the consensus seems clear to me. LjL (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ferrets who use free software are very curious, couldn't help but read this section after looking at the one above. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: it's an old Amiga filesystem, it was freeware at first, but released as free software later. Now it's used in three different Amiga-related OS's (the Amiga community is very fork-y), and it was a pretty, well, smart filesystem for its time, if I may say so. LjL (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I already left a Keep, the manuals do satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. Sometimes WP can be to mainstream, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and that includes alternative OS's and their software sometimes. AlbinoFerret 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I am mostly an inclusionist in general. Article deletion is, conspicuously, one of the few things on Wikipedia that is almost irreversible, "destroying" the entire history of an article, and people's work (yes, I'm aware simple deletion can be undone, but it gets difficult very quickly). I think it should be reserved for clearly bogus articles like the typical example of garage bands, not for things like software that is known and used by a relatively large amount of people all over the world. Keeping an article is cheap, deleting it is expensive. And yet I keep seeing many terrible lists of things survive unscathed while there's a trickle of deletion of interesting niche stuff... LjL (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing my posts

Dont edit, change, add or remove my posts. If you want put it at ANI, but dont restore it there. There on the discussion, focus on the content please. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yourself, do not delete talk page posts, either. Especially if they are offensive posts of yours. Etiquette is to strike them out if you change your mind. I'm most certainly noting this incident at ANI. LjL (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of doing your best to eliminate me, please focus on the questions raised by another editor there. I removed the comment not because it is wrong, I even thought of reporting Direktor, but because I want you to focus on content so you cannot have me as excuse. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Then if that's what you want, stop making accusations and swearing, and stop being the one telling other people not to accuse, when you routinely do it, as well as threaten "sanctions". LjL (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: by the way, at this point I don't believe an iota in your good faith. You have manipulated me before and you are trying to manipulate everyone now. You, yourself, aren't focusing on the content, but on furthering your pro-Serbian agenda. I have no agenda for or against Serbs because I am, thankfully, from a place that's not involved in all this mess; but if everyone around there acts like you, then it's easy to realize why there was such a mess. LjL (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I read all about that awful guy don,t worry I am not related to him in any way I'm just say that the c company never did the Simpsons witch is true