User talk:LinguistAtLarge

I prefer to keep conversations/threads together, so if you post here, I will usually answer here; thus you may want to add this page to your watchlist. You can click here to leave me a new message.

Laura Alves

Well, if she's notable, the "article" sure didn't say so.  :) It was an introductory sentence and nothing more. If you can restore it with additional content, you have my full support. Thanks for asking, though. I appreciate the courtesy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Yup, it's afternoon.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the article didn't even make it to stub status. I'll see if I can resurrect it with some sources. Thanks. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

En bloc sale of private property in Singapore

Hi! I am a Wikipedia newbie.

To improve verifiability, I tried to attach the govt statistical charts as jpeg attachments but failed.

Likewise, I've just added the web-link to the Attorney General's Chambers which sets out the underpinning legislation for this en bloc phenomenon in Singapore. However, it does NOT lead the user directly to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, Cap 158. How do I make the web-link go directly to this statute for user's convenience?

The High Court judgement in the Supreme Court web-link that I've also added is usually retained for a calendar quarter. Thereafter, the Supreme Court webmaster archives the written judgement. How do I affix the specific case judgement for future reference post-archival by the webmaster pls?

Kindly e-mail me at <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com>

Regards. (SINPariah (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Note to self: Article in question: En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To facilitate your review/verification of my Wiki page, here's another link to the Strata Titles Board (STB) Circular issued in 2004 to clarify the 1999 Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) which I have also added to my Wiki page:

[[1]] Strata Titles Boards Circular 1/2004

Whether a clarifying STB Circular has the effect of a "statute" is an open question. However, the en bloc industry along the entire value chain (viz, starting from the property marketing agent, to en bloc sale committee, to en bloc lawyer who operates under "no sale, no fee" structure, to the developer-buyer, to the STB, to the courts) takes it as law.

BTW, I run this blog using my pseudonym of "The Pariah" at:
www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com and a condensed version of my analysis of this piece of oppressive law is set out in this blog entry (but I suppose Wikipedia etiquette would NOT allow me to embed links to my own blog - Correct??). (SINPariah (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi there, you would probably be better off posting this information on the deletion discussion directly. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, LinguistAtLarge - I have taken your advice and posted it in the deletion discussion . Also added some extra press articles that I managed to trawl up. Could you pls e-mail me at <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> so that I could send you these press articles as e-mail file attachments. I am really not technie enough to do Wiki's picture gallery. Kindly oblige.
(SINPariah (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Dear LinguistAtLarge - I put in a whole slew of citations and changed the writing style. I needed to clean it up further but my article was taken down today. Could you pls advise why even my last versions were NOT ok?

SINPariah (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Schelle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Schelle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Schelle. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Rjanag. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

9691 Zwaan

You added this reference to the article with the modifier "in Dutch". I am Dutch and I can tell you this is definitely not the right language. I think it might be Polish, but I'm not sure. Please take another look at it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I've fixed it. I'm not sure what happened. I must have been thinking about Cornelis Zwaan (in the article), who was Dutch. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Linguist, that's a bit disappointing! For a "linguist"! ;) (Yes, Czech is correct.) Anyway, nice work improving the article--a stellar (haha) job as always. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I study languages, but I don't speak all of them. :) Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

MGM may be too young to remember, but an old Dutch TV show (Showroom?), on the NCRV, once featured a nut who claimed all languages were descended from Dutch, and he'd butcher every foreign word to 'prove' they derived from a Dutch word. Here we'd call that OR, but I always felt that in spirit he was right. Take care! Drmies (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohio Higher Education Rail Network

Thank you for fixing my AFD mistake. I had nominated it and put in the description, but it didn't appear for several minutes. I renominated it, and of course they both appeared. Good timing on my part. Wperdue (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Not a problem at all, you're very welcome. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fali languages

I thought you might want to check this new article out. There's also Bullom languages. And can you sort out Kagura (ethnic group) and Kaguru? Should they be merged? Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks Midnight! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers

I have done some renovation to creep on WP:NF. Fairly decent critical responses and reviews over the last 4 years. Search was easier once I realized it was listed under three searchable titles: Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers, Kame wa Igai to Hayaku Oyogu, and Turtles Swim Faster Than Expected. Darn translations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Zeus is a really cool dude and he thinks these WP:ORE articles are cool too

Greetings WikiProject Oregon guys and gals. Once again it is time for another edition of the our niche market Collaboration Of The Week. As always, thank you to those who worked on the Ross Tower and Walton. For this week we have the Calapooya Mountains and by request (and in honor of the opening) the venerable Portland Saturday Market. Just remember, if you are feeling blue, try breathing (rimshot please). Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sureth

New article. If you're okay without these "advisories" let me know. :) You've been busy as an Admin. Have you indeffed anyone yet? Drmies has been asking for trouble for some time now if you need to test your new skills. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, keep 'em coming.

I haven't blocked anyone yet-- I'm not really out looking for anyone to block, but if something comes up, I'll try my best to do what's best for the 'pedia. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Festum album redirect

The page Festum album redirects to a deleted article. It may need deleted. --scochran4 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is now deleted. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Beware of Wikipedia mirrors

Please be aware that "books" (I use the scare quotes because I doubt that many of these thousands of print-on-demand books have ever actually been printed) published by Icon Group International, such as one of the references you added to Elwedritsche, take most of their content from Wikipedia, so can't be used as reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing that out to me. I can't believe I missed that, especially with the [WP] at the end of the entry. I'll be more careful in the future. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - I was caught out the same way recently. These books seem to have been turning up a lot in Google Books searches in the last couple of months. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Churchill Regular Association for Poker

I recently found that you have deleted the article I wrote. As a fairly new user to Wikipedia, I was not aware of the deletion debate that was going on and so unable to contribute to it. Although I started the article, many other people has made edits and not ever challenged its notability. In addition, some of the points made in the deletion debate were wrong. The article referenced the obituary of a fellow of the College in which the JCR is mentioned. There are numerous other examples of student unions which have Wikipedia pages, which are far less notable. It is possible to reopen the debate so I can properly discuss these issues to reach a consensus? WikiWebbie (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi WikiWebbie, It looks like I didn't delete the article Churchill Regular Association for Poker, MBisanz did. You might want to ask him about it, although, if you want my opinion, I think he closed the deletion discussion correctly. You might want to take a look at these three requirements for Wikipedia articles: Notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. Also, according to the deletion discussion, you were able to voice your opinion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(Note) I restored this thread (I'll take care of cleaning up/archiving my talk page). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Churchill College Junior Common Room

I recently found that you have deleted the article I wrote. As a fairly new user to Wikipedia, I was not aware of the deletion debate that was going on and so unable to contribute to it. Although I started the article, many other people has made edits and not ever challenged its notability. In addition, some of the points made in the deletion debate were wrong. The article referenced the obituary of a fellow of the College in which the JCR is mentioned. There are numerous other examples of student unions which have Wikipedia pages, which are far less notable. It is possible to reopen the debate so I can properly discuss these issues to reach a consensus? WikiWebbie (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My only job in closing the deletion discussion is to carry out the consensus that was reached. Based on the arguments in the discussion, I concluded that the consensus was "delete". If you disagree with how I closed it, you may want to appeal to deletion review, or if you want more clarification on what I've said, you can ask me here. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a couple of questions for you -- (1) What points in the deletion discussion were wrong? (2) What would you have argued in the discussion? (3) What reliable sources do you have to argue that the subject of the article is notable? Thanks, your answers will help me evaluate this. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Here are the 3 points made in the debate, all of which were wrong:

"There is a single outside reference for this article, which itself does not actually mention this organization at all, but is an obituary for a professor at the school" - There were two references to my memory. One referenced the website of the organisation. The second referenced the obituary of Dick Tizard. Churchill JCR is definately mentioned in this obituary.

"nothing out there to establish notability of the room specifically" - The Junior Common Room is not a room. It is the term used for student union at several universities. See common room (university). The person who made this point does not understand the article, so maybe it should have been clearer.

"Its claim to fame is covered in Representation of the People Act 1969; other than that it isn't notable" - The third and final point is more vague. Firstly, Churchill JCR received national coverage for its high court case and forcing the Representation of the People Act 1969. An organisation that created an Act of Parliament, which altered the fundamentals of the UK constitution is definately notable. Besides this, the JCR is still active today and should have a page just like other student unions do. They are currently running a campaign for road safety in Cambridge, which resulted in a successful petition to Cambridge City Council. Most of Churchill College's notable alumni were involved in the JCR. This is a significant 50 year-old organisation, which is notable.

If the debate can be reopened I can find further evidence from Churchill Archives Centre. I should also be able to find a scan of the 50th anniversary edition of Varsity, which lists Churchill JCR's achievements in its top 5 headlines. One of the top 5 most important issues to affect Cambridge students in 50 years - this is definately notable.

WikiWebbie (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response WikiWebbie. I've looked at the article text again and there are three outside references, here are my comments on them:

1. Times Online - This link is broken. Do you think you could find a link to it that works?
2. FindArticles/The Independent - This the obituary of Dick Tizard. It seems to talk of Tizard and Churchill College, but I can't find any direct references to "Churchill College Junior Common Room" in the obituary. Perhaps you can point out how they are linked?
3. Official website - This is the "Churchill College Junior Common Room" official website.

Now, Wikipedia requires us to both verify the subject of an article, and show how it is notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word). To do this we need to cite reliable sources. Of the above three sources, the first is discarded as a broken link, and the third is considered a primary source (See [2] and [3]) and not eligible for use in establishing notability. So, to sum this up, you need to find multiple reliable sources (secondary sources from reputable publications) that provide significant coverage of the subject to establish notability under the criteria of the general guideline or the specific guideline for organizations. While some of the comments in the deletion discussion might have been erroneous, we still need to show notability through multiple reliable sources to have an article on the subject. If you can find reliable sources to demonstrate notability, then the article can (and should (and will)) be restored. If you want, go ahead and show me the sources you are able to find here, and I'll take the initiative of restoring the article if appropriate. Thanks! One more thing-- The fact that everything said in the article is true is not under discussion. As an encyclopedia we must verify this through the use of reliable, secondary sources: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the corrected link to the Times Obituary - [4] - and here is another link to a group at Stanford - http://tizard.stanford.edu/groups/sociality/wiki/2effb/Open_minds._Open_systems._A_report_on_Year_1-_4..html. I am not requesting that the group should be kept, but I feel that a proper debate should be had. Churchill JCR has been contactes by several alumni requesting that it take action against this deletion. This is the main organisation which brought about one of the most major pieces of legislative change in the UK in the 20th century. How is that not notable? WikiWebbie (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article Churchill College Junior Common Room so that you can add the new sources. Try to support each statement in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source. See WP:CITE for help with adding citations. These sources should demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria in WP:GNG or WP:ORG. After you're done, I'll relist the article on WP:AFD for a new deletion discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Front

Can you tell me how the Green Front article was deleted without informing me, the editor of the article? --Checco (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nightstallion retrieved the article as it is a minor political party like many others in Italy and took part to the last general election. I'm wondering if there is a duty to inform the article's author when the article is proposed for deletion or not... --Checco (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded here [5]. "Note that this was an AFD, not a PROD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Front). My closure was based on the deletion discussion, where I interpreted consensus to be "delete". Perhaps the correct venue for this would be WP:DRV or at least to open a new AfD to reach a broader consensus. I'm a new admin, so I'm not entirely sure what the correct procedure for this is, but a simple undelete with no additional process doesn't seem to jibe with deletion policy." — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron. This Barnstar is awarded to Linguist for all their work on saving articles from deletion. You are a really asset to wikipedia, and we are grateful you are here. Ikip (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to the Article Rescue Squadron

I have noticed your work, on several AfDs, and I am really impressed.

Hello, LinguistAtLarge. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the article rescue Roman Catholic Diocese of San Isidro

I really appreciate your work on the Roman Catholic diocese of San Isidro. I forgot to include the usual header. It was enough work to create all the articles in the first place!. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your massive overhaul of Underwire that saved it from merger/deletion. I hereby award you this barnstar. Very impressive work! ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I plan to nominate this the Did you Know? as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neat, thanks for the barnstar and the heads up on your planned nom. I'll have to take a look at how those DYKs work anyway. I've been around for a while but haven't gotten over to that corner of Wikipedia yet. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lavender linguistics

This popped up on my radar screen. Maybe you already saw it or commented at the AfD. I see you doing a lto of good work in that department. I haven't actually had a chance to look into the article subject or the AfD yet, but I'm signing off and it seemed interesting. I've been busy working up Stone Creek Jamboree and its place in potluck world record history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look at it. You know me-- anything to do with language or linguists and I'm hooked. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)