User talk:Languagehat: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:31, 20 November 2009

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! -- Runcorn 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of James Fitzgerald Duff and pasted it into James Fitzjames Duff. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, sorry, I guess I didn't look at the content close enough. Carry on! --Closedmouth (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Saltik

Hi, Languagehat, and welcome. I began editing here for similar reasons. I found articles on some rather obscure topics in which I was interested and, failing to find articles on others, felt that I could add something. The scholar, F. W. Hasluck whom you site at Sari Saltik, has also been one of my abiding interests. His book Christianity and Islam under the Sultans is old-fashioned and speculative, to be sure, but filled with interesting information. Thank you for getting the article on Sari Saltik started. You stole no thunder. I will circle back around in time and add what I can. Please let me know if I can be of help. The learning curve for newcomers, as I know from my own experience, can be steep. You seem to be off to a good start. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to sound patronizing. Since March of 2006 is not so new. How about: I am happy to make your acquaintance. Aramgar (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Schutz American School, Alexandria

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Schutz American School, Alexandria, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Schutz American School, Alexandria is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Schutz American School, Alexandria, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/19 DYK

On 19 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad al-Shaybani, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Annette Laming-Emperaire

Hi. I've nominated Annette Laming-Emperaire, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 28, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUSSIA roll call and your input required

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:

# {{User|YOURUSERNAME}}

to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom

Hi. I've nominated Mariya Petrovykh, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mariya Petrovykh

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mariya Petrovykh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalsea

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't revert to your edit just yet. I'm currently trying to get the page to FA standard, so it needs to be accurate, and I'd like a chance to look carefully at both sources. Also, the way your addition was written made it flow badly with the rest of the text. I think you're taking it word for word from the source. Do you have a link to your source material? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs for my edit, and I also found this, which suggests we both may be right. It's just a question of working out how to word it now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do of course recognize your expertise, and freely acknowledge I have none in that area, so your help is very much appreciated. I just wonder whether both our descriptions are correct in some way. I've posted a query on the article talk page, so perhaps someone else will weigh in with additional material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delmore Schwartz

I think my change cleans up your sentence. Your sentence is in the passive, and I changed it to the active. I don't think that I changed the meaning of your addition in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcohen (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Welcome! It's a pleasure to see your knowledgeable contributions to the encyclopedia. Please note that edits like this one are anything but "minor" according to the operative definition. By not marking them minor, you will help other editors keep up with the progress of the articles you edit and will avoid misunderstandings (e.g. that you have tried to sneak in a substantive change under false cover). Your good faith is abundantly plain to me, as I hope would have been obvious without my saying so. Wareh (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarrassing. All along I've been thinking it's good to mark things "minor" so people won't think I've rewritten the article; now I discover you're only supposed to use "minor" for things like correcting misspellings that nobody could possibly object to! I thank you for the heads-up, and I will be checking that box a lot less often from now on. (In fact, I'll probably go overboard in the other direction and get an irritated note from someone telling me I should have marked my change as "minor"...) Languagehat (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it was needless modesty! No problem. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Wareh (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languagehat, I'd say the acting definition of a "minor edit" on Wikipedia these days is almost the opposite of your intuition: many editors have a rapid-fire editing style, and they certainly aren't marking their incremental, non-content-oriented changes as minor. I come by way of your edit to The Cantos, which hit my watchlist. I recognize your name from MetaFilter, which I once read (without an account). In fact, my first contribution to Wikipedia was inspired by a MetaFilter thread (and, looking at that thread, linked to in the article, it seems you participated in it! Small world). So hello/regards, Outriggr (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last warning: adding new content to an article [1] is not equal to "minor edit". :-) (An article I also created, incidentally.) Outriggr (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It was the edit after that one that you marked as minor. You've got it right! Outriggr (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it was my little joke. It was supposed to be a sardonic take on the "template warnings" applied to users who gone 'n did something bad. Outriggr (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free in the future to slap this on my talk page!

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you introduce jokes into articles.

Outriggr (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Bao for DYK?

Hi. I've nominated Shen Bao, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. PFHLai (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox at Stater

Ha! I see you've been reading Travelling Heroes too. What a splendid book. I've begun working the soundest ideas from it into Wikipedia, with references to render them foolproof hopefully, and I saw you'd preempted me at Stater! Many hands make light work— ;) . --Wetman (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orikos

nice rewrite. do you know when it "became connected to the mainland", roughly? 87.202.31.72 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't; Hansen and Nielsen say "already in Antiquity," and that's the best I could find. I'm curious about it too. Glad you like the rewrite! --Languagehat (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and humility

A little humility is indeed a good thing... and as you correctly noticed, I am not a native speaker. Which is precisely why a couple years ago I was wise enough to seek advice not of one, but several native speakers (some with linguistics degrees). Their advice varied, but in general they all agreed that both usages (with and without an article) are acceptable, and the usage without the article is slightly more acceptable. As per that recommendation, we do not use definite articles to refer to Russian districts in the English Wikipedia. Feel better now? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Scafell Pike

Hi - thanks for adding the pronunciation of Scafell Pike - am I right that the first syllable is stressed (/ˈskɔːfɛl/)? Lfh (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, each syllable has equal stress (as in Pike's Peak); I've edited the article to reflect that. --Languagehat (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - thanks. Would you agree with the pron information given at Sca Fell? Lfh (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal acquaintance with the place; I can only rely on printed authorities, and to me, the fact that the two most authoritative books on the subject I know, the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British Names and Everyman's English Pronouncing Dictionary (by the great phonetician Daniel Jones), agree that both syllables are equally stressed trumps the travel guide given as a reference in the article you link to. To answer you in a word, no. --Languagehat (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the area either. Currently we have /'skɔː'fɛl/ for the pike and /'skɔːfəl/ for Sca Fell itself, which are clearly different pronunciations, but perhaps they are meant to be different. This will have to await input from someone who knows the area. In the meantime, I note that there is an article for Jones at Daniel Jones (phonetician), so I'll link that to both articles. Cheers, Lfh (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Latour

Hi. I deleted your last entry in Bruno Latour. It's explained in talk. I mean that your example should be in the article, but you should use the criticism from the source more directly to avoid WP:Synth (if that policy still exists). Cheers. pertn (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 :::I have no personal acquaintance with the place; I can only rely on printed authorities, and to me, the fact that the two most authoritative books on the subject I know, the ''BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British Names'' and ''Everyman's English Pronouncing Dictionary'' (by the great phonetician Daniel Jones), agree that both syllables are equally stressed trumps the travel guide given as a reference in the article you link to.  To answer you in a word, no. --[[User:Languagehat|Languagehat]] ([[User talk:Languagehat#top|talk]]) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 ::::I don't know the area either.  Currently we have /'skɔː'fɛl/ for the pike and /'skɔːfəl/ for Sca Fell itself, which are clearly different pronunciations, but perhaps they ''are'' meant to be different.  This will have to await input from someone who knows the area.  In the meantime, I note that there is an article for Jones at [[Daniel Jones (phonetician)]], so I'll link that to both articles.  Cheers, [[User:Lfh|Lfh]] ([[User talk:Lfh|talk]]) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
+==Bruno Latour==
+Hi. I deleted your last entry in [[Bruno Latour]]. It's explained in talk. I mean that your example should be in the article, but you should use the criticism from the source more directly to avoid [[WP:Synth]] (if that policy still exists).
+Cheers.
+[[User:Pertn|pertn]] ([[User talk:Pertn|talk]]) 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)