Jump to content

User talk:Pinkville

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.11.206.39 (talk) at 03:50, 21 February 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


  • For ongoing discussions of photography, politics, Chomsky, and anything else that folks would like to discuss in greater depth than is convenient on a talk page, please visit User:Pinkville/discussions.


my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for so strongly supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. Your thoughtful words helped so much! I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seydou Keita

Greetings! You recently created somewhat of a mess by moving Seydou Keïta (footballer) to Seydou Keïta II (footballer). Moving pages can sometimes be a bit complicated (I have also created similar messes in the past), and I see you have taken steps to solve the issue. May I just point out that instead of disambiguating two persons with the same name and profession by naming them I and II it's better to disambiguate by adding nationality, or, if nationality also is the same, birthyear (in this case Seydou Keita (Malian footballer) or Seydou Keita (footballer born 1980). In this case there seem to not have been a dab-issue in the first place, so moving Seydou Keïta II (footballer) back to Seydou Keïta (footballer) would solve all issues (even if I'd prefer Seydou Keita (footballer) which is the most common spelling). Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... if only the two names had actually been identical! I got entangled in the Seydou/Salif Keïta net, but the key problems have been resolved and I'll tidy up any loose ends. Thanks for your comments! I decided to keep "Keïta" for both footballers since they are relatives, previously the surname had been rendered differently for each. Pinkville (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The reason I moved Seydou to "Keita" is that after a brief search I didn't find any sources that suggested that he uses diacritics (including both the sources in the article and the official FC Barcelona Site). Moreover, the initial move from Keita to Keïta was made without discussion, and not by you (otherwise I would of course have consulted you). In alignment with the spelling within the article and other articles like Centre Salif Keita and Stade Centre Salif Keita, I thought the article should be at "Keita" unless reliable sources would suggest a different spelling. On the other hand, as a Swede I'm sensitive to the use of diacritics (Å, Ä and Ö are letters in their own right in Swedish) so if it can be established that mr Keita actually spells his name with diacritics I'm all for a move back to Seydou Keïta (footballer). I also notice that of the articles in other languages the Spanish, Italian and Latvian versions use diacritics. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were perfectly right. I looked into the sources for Salif Keïta, and they exclusively gave "Keita", without diacritical, so I think this article should be moved accordingly - but I can't do it myself (the move requires an administrator). As for the other languages, it's possible that the diacritics derive from Spanish, Italian or French transliterations, given their closer colonial proximity to Mali, if you see what I mean. But the linguistic issue is territory I know next to nothing about. I'll see about getting Salif Keïta (footballer) moved to Salif Keita (footballer). Pinkville (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Hoary (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I could have typed less? thanks again. Pinkville (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, most instances of "Keita" in the Library of Congress Authorities (very reliable, authoritative source for name orthography in English) prefer the variants without diacritics, but for Salif Keïta, the singer, they give the following scope note:
Keïta, Salif, |d 1949-
670 __ |a Ambassadeurs Internationaux (Musical group). Dance music from West Africa [SR] p1984: |b label (Salif Keita) container (b. in Mali; musician & songwriter; not to be confused with soccer player of same name)
Hard to conclude from this that the footballer also uses the diacritic, but the suggestion is there. (There is no entry in the Library of Congress Authorites for the footballer.) Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on the singer does not use the diacritic that LibCon prefers. So very messy.... Pinkville (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quelle iconnerie

So put me straight, please. . . . Hoary (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've done it! You've compelled me to go to the university library to dig into books that I'd hoped to have laid to rest... Pinkville (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnWtalk 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'd be happy to help. You can use my Wikipedia email to send me the URL. Pinkville (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, here is the link
Pretest webpage
If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.
Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)
JnWtalk 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll get to it as soon as I can (until the end of today I'm busy with my RfA. Pinkville (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot. This page will exist even after deadline. So just take your time. But I still hope that you can finish it early. :)

JnWtalk 09:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've completed the pretest, but two articles did not load properly* - undoubtedly because their titles include diacritics: Yokoyama Matsusaburō and Kameya Tokujirō. Pinkville (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* They both loaded as articles "to be created", like this.
I am sorry about that. It's because the locale character-set code. My program cannot present the special character well. But still thank you for completing it.


And the questionnaire is completed. Link:
evaluation questionnaire
Thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)
JnWtalk 04:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, just remind you to complete the questionnaire.

My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniutes. Thanks a lot. :)

JnWtalk 08:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have finished the questionnaire. Pinkville (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, thanks a lot for your help on filling out the questions on the pretest and questionnaire. In order for us to interpret the answers you gave, I have three additional questions to ask you. In the questionnaire, you check ‘free’ for the compensation of answering the question. Now there are some scenarios:

  1. If the users need to pay for asking questions through our knowledge service, will you still answer the questions for free?
  2. If the users pay a certain fee for each of his/her questions being answered, will you receive the compensation for answering the question or allow us to donate it to the charitable institutions?
  3. Do you have any comments on the knowledge service which we plan to develop? In this knowledge service, we will allow users to ask their questions, and the system will forward these questions to the users who edited wikipedia and were identified by our system as the domain experts. Which business model do you think is more proper? The expert can be compensated by the fee paid by the seekers or do it for altruism with no charge.

JnWtalk 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

howdy

sorry to pop up out of the blue like this, but i was wondering if i could just ask you a favor - the article on Naomi Klein is pretty regularly besieged by pov editors attempting to violate WP:undue by focusing disproportionately on the minority of criticisms of her recent book while failing to acknowledge the overwhelming majority of praise. whatever one's personal feelings on the book, it's pretty inarguable that it was well reviewed by most people, which wikipedia should naturally reflect. sorry to ask you, but i've been dealing with the same people for months, and it gets pretty boring reverting the same silliness over and over. i got into a thing like this over on the ralph nader page a few months ago with a user who was later found to be a sock puppet and blocked. if you could just keep an eye on it from time to time, it would be much appreciated. i'll be posting this message on a few other user pages just in case you've got your plate full or just plum don't wanna do it. thanks Marshmellowgoggles (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help out as much as I can. If it weren't for the good work of people like Klein, et al we'd have many fewer opportunities to use our editing skills... ;~) Pinkville (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers man! Marshmellowgoggles (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Gsell

Thank you for changing links on the French arcticle.

Your culture in photography (and your work on wikipedia) is very impressive.

Jatayou (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Thank you very much. Pinkville (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Hi. I'm glad you've accepted. We'll start it soon after mine has finished. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Pinkville (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Are you ready to start the RfA? Epbr123 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed ready! Pinkville (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just so you know, I've left you an additional question on your RFA. Take your time on the answer for this one--I really want to support you! :) Malinaccier (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice! :~) I'll try to give it my best. Pinkville (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Pinkville (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Pinkville (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that went quite well. Congratulations and enjoy the tools! Epbr123 (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the nomination and the kind words. I have a feeling not all RfAs go that smoothly... ;~) Pinkville (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next month, Bureaucrat? -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the heck not! Pinkville (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't interacted with you much, but I would like to say congratulations on your successful RfA. Good luck with the tools! -- SchfiftyThree 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good wishes! Hope we'll cross paths again soon. Pinkville (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrads, Pinkville. Use it wisely. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'll do my best. Pinkville (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats pinkville, feel free to take a look at my admin dashboard here: User:Xenocidic/dashboard. It can be transcluded, or just pilfered the old way. happy admniming.
Thank you! Handy dash! Pinkville (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your Adminship !!! BlueQ99 (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the workers?

This just popped up in my watchlist: (User rights log); 22:56 . . WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Pinkville from (none) to sysop (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pinkville)

So the editing proletariat and peasantry have "rights (none)".

The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a Wikipedia to win. Workers of the world, unite! -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡No Pasarán! Pinkville (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

\o/ Yay! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine, fine selection! Thanks! Pinkville (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah... All Power to the People! Pinkville (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another helpful link from the site any IP can edit :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bureaucrat? Pinkville (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask his big sister, she taught him everything he needed to know. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, these are priceless. They're like images from The Evangelical Church of the Silicon Bible... Pinkville (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Willy On Wheels... :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shiva H. Vishnu! Pinkville (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, along with the most active editors at M-theory. I do know Power Puff Girls is owned. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... ... . . . . I die.. . . in a sp ray . of .. pix els .. . . Pinkville (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all... and the t-shirt (though it's a little small for me :~)) Pinkville (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's some truly weird shinola in the school for new admins. Here's the list of contents, with my "seasoned, experienced" comments:
  • Blocking
    • Humdrum stuff. Till recently I didn't use the official templates because I never remembered what they were. Now I use them but I still don't remember what they are, and have to look them up, damn.
  • Deleting
    • This one's a doddle.
  • Protecting
    • This too.
  • Protecting deleted pages
    • I always forget how to do this one. It hardly matters, as the need only arises about once a month.
  • Rollback
    • Really easy.
  • Rollback granting and revoking
    • I've never done it. If anyone asked me, I suppose I'd have to go through their edit history (yawn); but if I then didn't like what I saw I wouldn't grant it and if I did like it I'd just put them up for admin, which as you've discovered is no big deal.
  • Viewing deleted pages and contributions
    • Can be blackly humorous. You'll gain a new understanding of the depths of human vanity, etc., when you see "deleted" pages.
  • (new!) Dealing with disputes
    • Toggle "horse sense" ON.
  • (new!) Accountcreator granting and revoking
    • I'd never even heard of "Accountcreator".
Hoary (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Coles Notes* version of Administration. Thanks! Oh, what hijinks await...?! Pinkville (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* In fact, infamous for failing to provide summaries of whole scenes from such minor and obscure literature as Hamlet, and for muddling the identities of characters.

Congratulations! Feel free to ask me if you need any help. :) GlassCobra 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're on my watchlist! :~) Thanks! Pinkville (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pinkville (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added {{administrator}} to your user page. Hope you dont mind ;) -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite reasonable. Thank you. Pinkville (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from a fellow admin... good luck with the tools! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats!!:)Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 06:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks! Pinkville (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. --Kaaveh (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pinkville (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pinkville (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mop

The "real world" beckons. I see you're up and around; could I ask you to put Cary Herrman on your watchlist? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barely up, but I comply! :~) Pinkville (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta luv that photo though... Pinkville (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing bit of shadow and light, that photo, but none of the references cited in the article meet RS :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed that too? ;~) Pinkville (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some weird shinola going on; check my recent edits. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, curious. I'm guessing it's still just a matter of unfortunate coincidental meeting of desperate attempts to save lame article with misguided attempt to deal with user talk page sullying... Will keep an eye, though, 'cuz it could get worse... Pinkville (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. See my explanation to Hoary. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that. But feel free to ask another admin to block under such circumstances - annoying situation, isn't it. :~) Pinkville (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but I resisted the temptation for an indefinite block.  :) Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That took fortitude! :~) Like Hoary, I'm keeping watch on this in case you'd like some "outside" intervention. Pinkville (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian photography

Would this chap be the cynosure of the vernissages that you frequent? Or what's the skinny? -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him. I never really know when it comes to Rawk Photographers... this one is very uninteresting, but presumably legit. The nickname anecdote is obviously encyclopedic, of course. Pinkville (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his name is fascinating, fascinating. I have, however, felt myself obliged to make certain edits to other ingredients of this article. Hm, what if the article were to start "Omer Cordell is a photographer named "Impson", after the Simpsons"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faint praise, indeed. And I think your proposed lead is much better than the current version. Pinkville (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the only substantial independent bibliographic source in the article, the interview at Metal-rules.com, we find this less than encouraging admission:
Are you able to make a living at photography?
Unfortunately I’m not doing this full time yet. I’d love to have this as my only income some day, though, it’s a very tough market to get into. I have a day job, but every other job aside from what I want to do seems trivial to me.

And what he wants to do is daunting:
Sure, someone can look at my work and say “Hey! This looks just like so and so’s work,” but my point is that I don’t go to the library or the bookstore and look at photography books to get inspired. I want to create something from my own mind-frame and try to produce something that is semi-original...
Although the interview was conducted in 2004, the fact that no later interviews have been cited suggests that we may have both done too much work on this article already... Salvageable or AfDable? Pinkville (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been AfD'd, so it shouldn't be sent there again till everything is crystal clear to all.
Of course I'd have voted DEL if I'd known about it, but I didn't know about it, because WP HOP doesn't have a routine deletion-notification subpage. Till recently it didn't have a list for how many articles there were of which level of completion; it recently got one, but then some bot wiped it out. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a sad little AfD. That's an even sadder botched job. There's some consolation in hoping that someday, I'll also be well known in my phylosophy for shooting film. Pinkville (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- Curiously, Omer gets more (and more recent) Google hits under his "unfortunate former last name" ("Shaked") than he does as "Omer Cordell"... Of course, they may not all be the same Omer "Impson" who is planning a more profound book about his travels around the world. Pinkville (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile. . . . Hoary (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a pretty successful user talk page exchange, with an as yet unsuccessful article... If only the Goddesses would spare us any more rock photographers. Pinkville (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Impson doesn't show up at the vernissages, how about this fella? -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that one during my RfA... apparently Canada is a particularly good breeding ground for these... things. I'll look at his CV a little more closely, but I have a feeling that e/mailing a few dozen notable artists/photographers doesn't confer notability on the sender... Pinkville (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hep to this cat? -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I ain't that hep... I'll have to look more closely after work. Pinkville (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mop and bucket, please!

And not your new ones, just the bog standard ones. If you have time, that is. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I think). -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, sorry I came to this so late. I didn't visit Wikiland last night. Does this need to be deleted now? I find this all rather confusing... Pinkville (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I rather supposed that if it were useless then somebody who knows about this stuff would remove it.
Well, you could always assuage your conscience by blocking a few people, I suppose. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resistance is futile (or, as they say in the US, Resistance is feudal). Pinkville (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, does that ogg file actually play what it purports to? Unfortunately, my workplace PC doesn't deign to play such files... Pinkville (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try it tomorrow. Our workplace PCs are WinVaster, full of bloatware. I chucked the application form for what could have been mine into the wastebin and continued to use my Kubuntu box instead. I install on it the software I want to install, no more and no less. (Stick it to The Man!) -- Hoary (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that VinWaster? What a tragedy! Pinkville (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could use a mop and bucket after one of these. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And does this simply take a long time to update - or is there still a problem? Pinkville (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's supposed to spider the various projects once every few days. But I don't know. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I saw a note to that effect, but I don't remember the context. Pinkville (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was worth a try

...thank you for your noble effort to help out with that user. After this, I think Gwen did the right thing. If he comes back with more abuse I'll protect the page (unless someone else sees it first). Appreciate you trying, though: sometimes it works. Antandrus (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. I think everybody did a very good job on this case. And you, Acroterion and (of course) Gwen Gale showed admirable restraint under great provocation. There seemed to be a (very) slim chance of a better outcome, but that inexcusable edit corked it. Who'd have thought Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan could inspire such heights of over-the-top hostility? Pinkville (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The long and short of it is, there are lots of down-market, sensationalized "documentaries" and other references to Earhart and Noonan on the telly. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that stands to reason. There's a whiff of fetish (in the older psychological sense of the term) to this thing... Pinkville (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did a fine job of patient explanation. Most of the time it doesn't work, but every now and then we reel somebody back from the brink. Abuse comes with the territory, as does a thick skin. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And well done to you! I've seen the "patient explanation" approach work once or twice (so much time spent on talk pages vs. article pages!), but this looked like a doomed case from early on... Pinkville (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll know you've truly arrived when there's a thread at AN/I with your name on it and the words "admin abuse" and "desysop" in the text.
As for the Jovian satellite, I'd let it go. He's been around long enough to know better, but he doesn't seem to be making a habit of it, and I personally give a lot more slack on talk pages. It's all poor form, especially the patronizing tone and stepping on your edits, but not worth your time or worry. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll know you've truly arrived... Something for me to look forward to.
In fact, I was a little taken aback when the Red Pen reacted as he did. I'm seldom too concerned with such (useless) musings being on the talk page as long as they don't appear in the article. Lots of people seem to think they can take on Chomsky, and often add a few lines of murky thought to his talk page... comparatively harmless. But this had the appearance of something that might escalate. Thanks for your reassuring assessment. Pinkville (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've occasionally offered gentle advice to enthusiastic warners about inflaming an otherwise manageable situation. Most of the time they take it well and adopt a more judicious approach.
I had my baptism at AN/I when I encountered an editor who was making somewhat controversial edits while logged out, but signing his name. I pointed out that it was impossible to tell whether it was really him or an impostor trying to stir things up in his name. I blocked the IP (anon only) and forced him to log in, which he promptly did, then went directly to AN/I where he complained loudly about my "abuse" and demanded punishment. Apathy reigned, and the thread died. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a peculiar road to resolution! Pinkville (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name in vain

Touche' I have attempted a different tack that is more friendly, I hope. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like a positive - if unlikely - outcome has been achieved! All the best. :~) Pinkville (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My last contribution. Now I'm called a Jovian satellite but my original thought was Greek mythology combined with initials of sorts. Cheers and I hope to see you under more pleasant circumstances. You are a reasonable man despite Chomskyanism. :-).Io (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the moon has volcanoes! :~) Likewise, I hope we cross paths again soon (and thanks for the kind word). Meanwhile, I'm quite happy to discuss your points on Chomsky (or any other subject you like)... on either of our talk pages! All the best. Pinkville (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should feel right at home then - but wait a second, I breathe oxygen among other things. (See, we're not so different after all - I'll even go as far as assuming you are carbon-based like me. :-)
I'm all out-chomskied for the time being, and this recent "debate" has not been one of my shining moments, so I'll leave be. But I do have a few questions, which I've never seen addressed about his theories. Maybe another time. I at least know, where to find you. And I'm not usually this bellicose. Let's just put it down bad timing. All the best Io (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe not out-chomskied enough. Here's a citation from the introduction to The Amazonian Languages, eds. Dixon and Aikhenvald. Chomsky has been accused of reducing everything to syntax. Maybe, maybe not, but I myself suspect that the ones who set up the scheme for the work mentioned in the introduction were disciples of his. To give Chomsky the benefit of the doubt, I may wrong or, if I'm right, they may have misunderstood their teacher. But here comes the quotation.
The Handbook of Amazonian Languages, edited by Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum and published by Mouton de Gruyter, is a most worthwhile enterprise that has so far run to four volumes that include ten grammars (ranging in quality from quite good to very good) together with a number of typological and historical studies. Yet the Handbook would be more useful if the contributors were not forced to follow an idiosyncratic scheme of organization: syntax, then phonology, then morphology. That this is basically unworkable is demonstrated by the fact that five of the eight grammars in the first three volumes have, as the whole of 23, Morphology, a single sentence along the lines This has been treated in earlier sections. It is of course necessary to know the basic inflectional morphology in order to unterstand the syntax, so this information is slipped in early on in the description (but at different places in each grammar). The net result may be that nowhere is there any integrated morphological statement, e.g. of the structure of the verb.
This really sounds peculiar, and if my suspicion is correct, then Chomsky does have something to answer for. (Io)
I don't know the work you've mentioned here, but I know something of Geoffrey Pullum, and it seems clear from what I know of him and of the context, that this is not the same subject within linguistics that Chomsky is pursuing. Traditionally, linguistics has dealt with analysing the differences and similarities of various language, their histories and interactions, etc. That is not Chomsky's subject. Chomsky is interested in the faculty of mind that allows us to acquire and use language, and it is the findings that he and others have uncovered that strongly suggest the existence of a language organ (not a term he uses [anymore], by the way) - the faculty of language that not only largely allows for our communication with each other, but that also allows for (the peculiarities of) human thought. When speaking of language, Chomsky is usually speaking of language in this sense, and not in the sense of English, French, Wolof, Thai, etc. (termed, natural languages). He is interested in the generative grammar that allows all normal humans to produce unprecedented sentences, etc. with limited means. That is, to have the capacity for infinite expression from limited means. More on this later, I suspect... Pinkville (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the question about the oft mentioned language organ and settings of parameters (I once attended a weird and illogical lecture by a devoted follower where that concept figured heavily, perhaps more of which later) along with the question of whether children acquire all languages with equal ease. The first thought that springs to mind is that the children are not able to decide the question. They have forgotten by the time they are able to answer. (Io)
Actually, the fact that children forget this "learning" is one bit of evidence that supports Chomsky's theories of language acquisition. The process seems to be nearly automatic. At this point, nearly every living language has been studied - and in Chomskyan linguistics, the weirder the language, the more likely it has been studied (e.g. Australian Aboriginal languages are at the centre of the field; and studies of sign languages have been pivotal), and the facts are in: children acquire language - regardless of where or which language(s) - in the same time frame and the same way. One of the key observations in Chomsky's analyses of language is that - in spite of the outrageous apparent difficulty of the task - children acquire language with nearly no instruction, and with apparent ease - almost as if they are simply waiting for it to come upon them. For example, though it takes years of intensive training to get a chimpanzee to acquire a few word, a human child acquires about 35 words per day from the age of 3 (until their teens, when the rate slows, slightly) - and without having to hear the various tense/person/etc. variations of each word. That is the "ease" of language acquisition of which Chomsky speaks. To contrast, the (now debunked) Behaviourist account of language acquisition was that children had to hear (and remember) every utterance that they might some day use... without any scope for simply knowing the grammar and creating their own utterances as circumstances demanded. Pinkville (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a single point (or perhaps a couple) in the midst of everything else, so that you don't think I've deserted you. :-) That children don't remember how they learned their language is neither here nor there. In the process of learning, they are not able to communicate, and what cannot be somehow kept in mind by some kind of system, call it a mental sign language or whatever you wish, can not be remembered. A terms like "now debunked" should not be bandied about. It (behaviourism) has been debunked to the satisfaction of those who were mostly against it in the first place or let themselves be swayed by Chomsky's skills at sweeping under the carpet. There is a world of qualified people out there who disagree. The late, lamented Larry Trask was one of them, one of the regrettably few linguists, who are cited in opposition to Chomsky in that particular article. The rest of the criticism is regrettably about politics and Chomskys apparent need to draw attention to himself in one field, when his attraction in another was on the wane. There is no such thing as a weird language except in the eye of the beholder. If you think English is somehow typical, then most languages look weird, but had Chomsky been born Turkish, his theory would have been different. Cross-species comparisons are also absolutely irrelevant. Sorry about this plain talk, but it's been a tiring day, and tomorrow will be worse. I'll pick up more substantial points (if you were about to tell me, that I'm merely speculatiog, I am aware of that :-) when I'm fresh. But still, Chomsky isn't in a position to say much of anything about the function of the mind, precisely because of his abstract approach. As a phycisist once said (according to my memory): "High-energy particle interactions don't take place in Hilbert spaces, they take place in a laboratory." The same can be said about language. All the best and hope to hear from you Io (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One belated PS. As anyone who has learned a foreign language can attest, 35 new words per day are nothing astonishing, especially if a major proportion of your waking hours are devoted to the task. Children do have something to compare to, namely the rules they have already learnt, hence the frequency of errors based on analogy in their language. The first rules are learnt slowly, then at an accelerating pace, but that doesnt't have to mean that the rules are innate and in my opinion they are not. Use Occam's razor. The poverty of stimulus is vastly overrated. Don't parents talk to their children? I don't know of a single case, when they have not. In fact parents are usually talking all the time, when they are with their children. Cheers (and I will add comments as I think of them and find the time) :-) Io (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a long one. I'll keep the next one, if there is one, shorter. Feel free to answer, if you're so inclined, on my talk page. That frees your own from clutter and I will see the answer sooner. All the best Io (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More linguistics including Chomsky

Sorry about my continuing "harassment", but I'm thinking, and I as I understand it, I have an open invitation to "chatter aimlessly" :-) here. Feel free to ignore, if I'm boring you. To quote Chomsky:

The fact that all normal children acquire essentially comparable grammars with remarkable rapidity suggests that human beings are somehow specially designed to do this, with datahandling or hypothesis-formulating ability of unknown character and complexity. (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. K. Brown).

Very well, but who is to say that children acquire their mother tongue (or tongues) with remarkable rapidity? It takes a child years to become a competent speaker and for the first couple of years he or she has little to do except absorb and process information. Also note that he says essentially comparable grammars, which somewhat takes the bite out of his argument. It is of course not in dispute that there is a language organ, generally speaking. It's the brain, and since children do learn to speak that point is proven. It is even mostly known which part of the brain is responsible. But nothing about remarkable speed or ease follows logically. A great deal of a child's time is spent learning the language, slowly at first, then more rapidly as he becomes more adept and has more data to compare with. So why have people accepted the statement about extraordinary rapidity so readily? I'm not following any author here. This is something that has bothered me for quite a while, and, believe it or not, the idea is my own, although I do not doubt that some others have thought the same. It is known that children learn the same native language at very different speeds. It is also known that they, generally speaking, learn some facets of the language later than others. So why is the idea so difficult to accept that there may be differences in effort between languages? After all, learning language A may produce a competent speaker in X years and another speaker of language B in the same time, but who can prove that the same amount of intellectual effort is required in both cases? All children have, after all, is time for absortion and digestation of the continous bombardment of external stimuli.

You once said some thing to the effect of, that most who tackle Chomsky fail spectaculary by their own efforts. I hope you were only referring to amateurs like me. Competent linguists have also taken him on and failed to fail, so to speak. :-) (Io)

Actually, I was mostly thinking of the scads of academics (and wannabes) and media types who have taken him on. There's a particularly embarrassing interview by CBC's Evan Solomon of Chomsky (I think it's even on YouTube...) in which the interviewer clearly thinks he's got Chomsky by the balls, but he's only hung himself up by his own nuts. Even at the end, Solomon has no idea what has happened. In my experience, that's quite typical of most wannabe honest-makers of Chomsky. See also, this exemplary letter. There's an example in the field of linguistics I can supply - but the link isn't handy at the moment... I'll get back to you. Pinkville (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the language organ: Its existence is not in dispute any longer, but when Chomsky started (in the 1950s) it was against the backdrop of Skinnerian behaviourism, which denied innatism entirely. To this day, such anti-innatist ideas persist in some related fields, as indicated by a recent essay appearing in Sociology Today (Albert Bergesen, Chomsky Versus Mead, 2004) appealing to peers to accept that the mind has innate structures - against the still prevailing notion (in sociology, Bergesen argues), that it is a blank slate. (If you have access to JSTOR I can provide you with relevant link(s)). And to clarify, the language organ isn't the brain, per se, but the faculty of language which resides in the brain (and which is analogous to the optic system, say).
About the language organ. If its existence is not in dispute, where is it? An organ is a well defined concept in biology and the human body has been mapped very thoroughly. Another thing. If you read the opening sentences of the article on Stephen Pinker you'll see that there are two groups of psychologists and/or linguists debating evolution and heredity, very complex fields both, way out of their field. Methinks it is a case of hubris on both sides and I cannot but think of Her Almightiness, The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Cheers Io (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rapidity of child language acquisition, I responded to that in my earlier comment, above. But one point, studies show that (normal) children learn the same mother tongue at about the same rate, and in the same way, developmentally speaking. That is, it's not the case that some learn all the verbs first, then the nouns, and so on, while others learn nouns, then verbs. There are phases to language acquisition, but - on evidence - these seem to be essentially (i.e. fundamentally) the same regardless of the specific language involved. Furthermore, as Chomsky has pointed out, the apparent radical differences between various languages turn out to be much less different on closer examination than was previously thought - with at most very few deep differences between any languages noted. The variation between natural languages is all superficial, the deep structures are the same. Pinkville (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been fun writing this. I'll take you up on your offer of discussion on our respective talk pages. I hope you think this is a discussion, not some aimless rambling. :-) Cheerio Io (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please feel free to chatter. I'll respond (more fully) as soon as I can... I'm just on my way home from work. (And I've been collecting some readings...:~)) Pinkville (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity. Where are you or more to the point, what is your time zone? I'm on Greenwich time. Cheers Io (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Montreal. So, Eastern (Daylight) Time. Pinkville (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kibitzing here . . . if you want to see Chomsky taken on by a sharp interviewer, see his interrogation by Cap'n Spock in "Chomsky on the Enterprise", chapter 6 of this excellent book. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read bits and pieces of Pullum, but I like what he has to say. Of course, the whole subject is... Fascinating... Pinkville (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence under your nose

Extending an invitation to me, like you did, is like giving a pyromaniac a matchbox. Anyway, yoy've probably heard this anecdote, but I've always found it funny and instructive (see topic title) so here goes:

A linguistics professor was giving a lecture about how various positive and negative statements can change meanings in various ways - double negatives, positive and negative etc. - but he ended the lecture by saying that there had yet to be found an example of two positives adding up to a negative - at which someone in the audience quickly stood up and said contemptuously: "Yeah, right!"

Well, perhaps I've got an odd sense of humour. Cheers, and by all means enlighten me as is within your power, since you have been collecting readings - the only hurdle should then be my comprehension. :-) Io (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

har har. Good joke! Pinkville (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

language

I'll start with some general comments here, and then respond to your specific points, in turn, above. I've read much of Chomsky's available writings on language and mind intended for a non-specialist audience. I'm no linguist and I'm no scientist, but I have an active interest in the science of mind - the cognitive sciences, and I read what I can on the subject. I've also read much of Chomsky's political writings, and though I am personally interested in any possible connections between the two, it's important to point out that Chomsky himself doesn't see any significant knowable link between them. See, for instance, his opening remarks in his well-known 1970 lecture, Language and Freedom, also an excellent introduction to his understanding - at the time - of language and mind.

First, as I read it, Chomsky's primary intent in studying language is to understand the human mind. The premise is that language is the only part of the mind we understand at all well (and, at that, not so much anyway) and the only part of the mind for which we have easy access to evidence, i.e. language itself. Compare, for instance, psychology, which has only a relatively recent history as a subject of serious scientific inquiry* and which remains comparatively mysterious, without any known components that could compare with the known components of language: words, syntax, etc. Until recently (and, in no small measure, following from Chomsky), psychology was still mired in fallacious extrapolations from the pecking of pigeons to human behaviour (but that's another subject).

Though Chomsky writes strictly in English, he grew up reading, speaking, and teaching Hebrew. He studied Arabic in university, and the anecdotal evidence seems to be that he knows Yiddish, French and other languages besides.

Anyway, enough of preliminaries... Pinkville (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*The serious study of language goes back thousands of years. I'd say (to my knowledge, Chomsky says nothing like this), that the study of psychology has - until the 19th century - primarily been conducted in literature. But there are Indian texts analysing language that date back well before Christ.

Some readings:

You'll find the Indian texts discussed here. As point of historical interest, you might also want look this up. It turns out that it was a countryman of mine who invented minimal pairs. :-). About the rest, ease of learning and all that more will follow, but I have seen too many examples of siblings learning to speak at different rates to be convinced that children learn their mother tongues at about the same rate. It makes a lot of difference, whether you give or take a year at that age. That the language organ in Chomsky's sense is no longer in dispute, is a very bold statement, and so is the statement that the deep structure (if there is one) is basically the same. There is consensus that language processing takes place in the brain and two parts of the brain have been associated with it, Broca's area and Wernicke's area. That is about as far as the agreement goes. If there were agreement, there would be little to write about, and yet authors pour out articles like the end is near.
Sorry, forgot to sign. All the best Io (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get something out of the way

I think it should be mentioned that I'm not the least bit interested in Chomsky's politics. The bits and pieces I've heard or read are bizarre to me, and they will probably not be what the man will be remembered for. It is a pity that the article Criticism of Noam Chomsky deals almost exclusively with politics.

As for the rest, I think I'll begin with Chomsky and psychology for the simple reason that I have the 12 volume Handbook of Psychology, Editor-in-Chief Irving B. Weiner, Wiley & Sons, 2003. It is thus accessible to me (admittedly in a pdf-version), and fairly recent, covers the whole field and is published by a reputable house by reputable authors. Chomsky does get a fair amount of mentions there.

But, there's always a but, I'm getting pressed for time, preparing for the autumn semester (both as a grad student and TA, although I'm much older than the average for either) so I'll have to make do with easily accessible literature, and I don't have time for anything lengthy. Reading about anything but statistics and time series will have to be squeezed in, and then I also have an enormous amount of precipitation data to process. This does not mean I'm backtracking. I'm just warning you that this might drag on. Think of it as some sort of mail chess. I'll write when I've got time, energy and inspiration.

As an aside regarding psychology, it is a relative latecomer as a serious science. Freudian analysis does not qualify as science, for instance, although Freud himself acknowledged that his construction would eventually give way to chemistry, biology and the like. Unfortunately the next generation forgot about that and the id, ego, superego and whatnot took on lives of their own. It's worth remembering Richard Feynman's comparison of psychoanalysis to witch-doctoring. (Feynman, of course, realized that psychology based on solid evidence from biology, chemistry and physics is science - after all, he knew better than most what the scientific method entails.) But psychologists were poorly educated in those fields for a long time. I remember the time when Roger Sperry got his Nobel Prize. It was customary then (perhaps still is) for the winners in chemistry, physics and medicine to have a discussion afterwards, where they often went far and wide. Sperry (who at least knew how to conduct experiments) spent quite some time trying to convince the physicists that they (the physicists) didn't really understand physics!

Thank you for the links, and I have high hopes, now that everyone is showing himself from his better side (well, you didn't show a bad side as I recall :-), that this should be both fun and educational. All the best Io (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology and neural networking

After stealing some time to read a couple of articles, it seems to me that Chomsky thinks of languages mainly in terms of computers. Indeed, his first level refers to Turing machines. But, has he ever delved into neural networking (I mean artificial networking here) which is how computers learn and would seem to be a good paradigm for the human learning process. (Neural networking was actually inspired by non-chomskian ideas about how the brain works.) Also, has he ever studied the actual biological or more precisely, physiological, function of the brain? He is a linguist, not a physiologist. To end this with a short analogy, which I heard years ago: "Chomsky's approach is comparable to trying to find out how a car engine works by studying its exhaust fumes." (I can't supply you with a reference, but the analogy stuck in my mind.) I'm returning to my probability distributions now, but damn the Internet and damn Wikipedia - once you get going the next thing you know is that you're a couple of hours past bedtime and you've got nothing to show for it in real life. :-) All the best Io (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm all for independence! Pinkville (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, so am I, and others may have it as well, even Americans. :-) Io (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your delectation

James Michael Gomez‎. Just one of hundreds of major talents. Or not. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they're getting younger and younger, too! Still, there might yet be a prodigy, I suppose... Pinkville (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small potatoes. And now, something written with real professionalism. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slick... Pinkville (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy relief. -- Hoary (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm boring you ...

... just say so. I admit that I've bombarded you with comments and musings, but if you think they're too dumb to deserve an answer, you might say that, and I won't be offended. On the other hand, if you don't have any answers, you might say that too. No harm no foul, but I'm beginning to get the impression that I'm talking to myself here. You could gather the comments and questions and deal with them by category, for instance, "This doesn't deserve an answer", "I don't know", "I'm still thinking" or "Here's the answer". Lack of time is also quite an acceptable reason. All the best Io (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not getting back earlier - I am strapped for time at the moment (though I've read your posts, I haven't had a chance to form an intelligent response yet). I'll reply properly later today or tomorrow. So, I'm by no means bored, etc... just slow! :~) Pinkville (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have my full sympathy about being strapped for time. As it is, I have had to steal time to write anything on this page at all - between reading statistics and trying to get my MATLAB-programs to behave. :-) Take your time. Cheerio Io (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One question about the deep structure. This actually requires a prologue, which is as follows.
It seems to be an article of faith among linguists of all stripes that all languages are, more or less, equally "complex". The reasons they give for that happen to coincide to a large degree with Chomsky's arguments (at various stages in his development). Examples are, for instance:
Children learn languages at approximately the same rate.
Any child can be taken as an infant, transplanted to a different community and he/she will learn the language there at the same rate as the natives. (No argument there, as far as I'm concerned.)
Some languages may be less complicated than others in one respect (e.g. Icelandic morphology is way more complicated than that of English, to name two languages I know), but the complexity to make it up is in that case stuck in other areas of the language. (English syntax is often mentioned in this case.) But I've just been leafing through an Icelandic syntax, 800 pages or so and still much left to be explained, so I can't really accept that reasoning.
This leads me to the conclusion, that the credo of equal complexity (not that there is any metric for that, as far as I know, please tell me, if you do) is a preparation for another credo, namely that all languages are equally worthy of study, which I heartily agree with.
So, the question becomes as follows: Knowing the phonetic, morphological and syntactical complexities of at least one language well, I would be interested in knowing, how a Universal grammar accounts for all that. Icelandic (or pick another language to your liking) has exceptions and exceptions to exceptions in abundance, it is morphologically complex and its syntax is at least as complicated as the English one, to say nothing abut the phonology, so it seems to me, having just had a brief refresher, that the majority of the language has to be aquired without the help of an innate grammar, which by definition produces a finite set of rules and does not predict exceptions. (Recursion does, indeed, provide for an infinite set, but no language can realize that.) As any historical liguist will tell you, there are various forces at work, analogy, levelling and so on, all of which has to be learnt by exposure to each language. Cheers Io (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you would like to save some space on your talk page, and take this discussion up per e-mail, it's OK. We both chose to be able to receive mail, so that is an option. Just drop me a line and I'll answer. If not, let's continue here. All the best Io (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're simplifying the notion of UG and exaggerating the significance that it has for many people concerned with it. You may find Newmeyer's Possible and Probable Languages of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very probably simplifying the notion, which is actually bad, since a more complicated system than what I have got the impression of, only makes things worse. I may be exaggerating the impact (let's hope so) but then we have to take into account, which period we are talking about. Linguistics seems to be recovering from Chomsky, gradually, but there was a time when Chomsky was linguistics, for all practical purposes. Thanks for the reference, but I don't have the time nor resources to spend on reading books on the subject. I'll have to make do with what I already have (e.g. Comrie's Language Universals), but otherwise I'm really in a pinch, learning and doing other stuff, about which see above. But thanks and all the best Io (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've lead a varied life for the past decade or more, but the only constant has been my interest in mathematics. And, having read quite a bit about it and having an interest in languages, that is where I see Chomsky fail. Just to clarify. All the best Io (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If there is a language organ, where is it? You can't postulate an organ without proving its physical existence. Now, according to Pinkville, if I have understood him correctly, its existence is not in debate (a questionable statement in itself) and also that the brain isn't it. I really am shocked. You have to be able to make predictable claims, and if you go as far as postulating an organ without being able to locate it you're in the same situation as when I postulate the existence of my ketchup-gland, which hasn't been found yet but does regulate the amount of ketchup in my blood-stream and also provides my blood with its colour - medical opinion notwithstanding, the red blood cells have nothing to do with the colour - the medical doctors have just not understood linguistics correctly. (I'll leave out a smiley here, I don't know the one which combines sarcasm and everything else - but this was a deliberately extreme example): Cheers Io (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a new sub-page for ongoing discussions of Chomsky, linguistics, and anything else that folks would like to discuss in greater depth than is convenient on a talk page... Pinkville (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shell

Unusual, a photographer convicted of and imprisoned bigtime for manslaughter. But it seems that a mere guilty verdict and life imprisonment doesn't satisfy some editors of Wikipedia. Take a look at the article's edit history, and consider adding it to your watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudenzio Marconi

Dear Pinkville,
May I challenge you ?! I think it would be interesting to improve Gaudenzio Marconi.
Best regards, Jatayou (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, pistols at dawn? ;~) Oh no, much better to work on this article together! Good idea. See you there soon... Pinkville (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klein / Stiglitz

Hello--I thought my double-quote from Stiglitz was a good way to handle it. There's good stuff and bad stuff throughout the review, and I thought that without devoting a whole lot to that one review, those two quotes best summed it up. There are lots of qualifications he makes throughout the review, opening right up with implications that it's full of conspiracy theories, and talking about oversimplification, but including all that would get out of hand. (We can discuss on talk page if you'd prefer.) Cretog8 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! NM, I see while I was writing this, you started on the talk page. I'll go there instead.Cretog8 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, indeed, I responded on the article talk page. Pinkville (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well excuuuuuuuse me

One fucking thing after another. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the result of this TfD discussion will be an order to convert all related content to a myriad of sub-stubs. Then we'll have danced a full circle. Pinkville (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That's what you meant by "fingerpopping"! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there's any significance to your getting the euphemised version while I got the hard core? :~) Pinkville (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page

I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent .

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Photographers Task Force

If you can spare a moment from the excitement of marching under a black flag, perhaps I can again draw your attention to (the soon to be deleted?) Template:History of photography-related articles: there are some interesting people appearing. (I have access to a stunning book about Boggiani and hope to lick that particular article into shape.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't breathe... black flag... cutting off... air...
You're absolutely right. Some very interesting names, and not just the famous Muppet photographer, John Barrett! I'll have a closer look! Pinkville (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take heart. -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with the huge and handsome Boggiani book is that it's so multilingual that not much is written in any of its languages. No article for Boggiani in the two-volume Routledge encyclopedia of 19th century photography (which I notice lazily lets Bennett skip macrons and thus distort Japanese names), none in the Oxford Companion, and "my" library turns out to have no dictionary of anthropologists/ethnographers. There was at least one recent book anthologizing and discussing early photographs of American Indians but this doesn't mention him. Apparently he gets a favorable write-up in Tristes Tropiques, but I've mislaid my copy of this splendidly readable book and anyway I have a dim view of Professeur Blue-jeans' concern for the facts. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story... I have a number of possible sources available that I'll consult, and with some luck I might find el dorado! Will let you know (or the findings will magically appear). Pinkville (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been by you!

Should I blame Bennett or Tuttle for the mangling of Japanese? Whichever, verifying/fixing the result is most irritating. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennett or Buttle... indeed, it's annoying! And even I should have guessed those macron additions. Slowly filling in the very early history. Pinkville (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could only guess a third or so; th' missus helped with a bit more, and then frantic googling around verified the guesses and corrected one. It's not easy. What's irritating is that Bennett (presumably) knew, and then he or somebody else perversely decided to suppress the information. -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich

An editor has nominated One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich, an article you edited, for deletion, with this comment:

I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mayalld (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal rubbish! Try this and then let's go out and shoot something. -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally awesome! Let's go shooting, but don't bring Dick!
When I was working at the airport, every fall I would see the hunters returning from Kuujjuaq and Puvirnituq on their way back to the States, etc. I once saw a hunter with a broken leg wearing a very charming camouflage booty over his cast. And another time, I noticed a hunter in the middle of the Tie Rack store adjusting the straps on his baby carrier... only for me to finally realise that he was actually fixing the wrapping on his caribou...
Btw, Palin is, like, totally awesome! Pinkville (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The monkey said it first! Uh, which airport was that? Hoary (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That which was then called, merely, Dorval Airport. Pinkville (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Montréal Dorky Aérodrome"? Did they, like, speak French there? Ewww! -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I hope you've supported our troops by listening to this important video. Pinkville (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, she's hot. In particular, she's so hot in the last 40 seconds or so that some spoilsport has blanked it out. So I'm missing the, uh, "butt parts". -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC) ... Thinking of which, veep schmeep, Palin for Prez! -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that's my kind of Palin!
Pity about the butt parts... they were delicious in the earlier, uncarved version. Pinkville (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, a further note on Sandy Belle. Pinkville (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote a comment perhaps not by you: Thanks for the info! I’ll pass it on to the person who told me about the video; he wasn’t sure but felt rather certain it was satire. What with the "sperms" and all that, it is indeed hard to be absolutely sure (or sure to be absolutely hard, or something). Nice graphic on the top left by the way. Yes, dear boy. It's by a chap called Banksy. But the real question that people should be asking about a video such as this is of course, will it blend?. -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein

There seems to be some trouble brewing at NF. I don't think you can mess round with a lead on a delicate article like this. I have reverted once, while the depaulcize newby keeps plunking a very poor piece of sardonic vitriol back into para.1. I haven't reverted his revert. I would appreciate if some of the admins keep an eye on this, since we have in the past had a fairly broad agreement on all sides that quality material (not Plaut, who is a notorious controversialist writing for a dubious source) is the aim, and that editing at this stage should be consensual, and discussed beforehand on the talkpage. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed keeping an eye on the article (as always), and the moment further disruptive editing by depaulcize occurs he/she will be dealt with. Thanks for the headsup! Pinkville (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chop chop chop!

This sez:

Shortest path from Sada Abe to Will It Blend?
Sada Abe April 27 Department store Blender Will It Blend?
4 clicks needed

Should The American Shopper be told? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze image advice

Hello! (I've picked you as a suitable informant, based on your past edits at Muslimgauze, and remarks/character I agree with above ;)

I recently welcomed a brand new editor, User:I. Khider, whom appears to be an official biographer for Bryn Jones, and says he has "access to A LOT of images" that might be useful/useable here. (I found his forthcoming book appears on amazon). He is looking for advice on how to deal with Images here, a realm I'm not at all familiar with. I was wondering if you might be interested in assisting him and educating us both at User talk:I. Khider#Muslimgauze, or, if you could point me towards someone else you'd recommend? Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Pinkville,

First, thank you for your offers of help as posted on the discussion page. There are two realms I need guidance on, suggestions of what sort of images would be prudents to include in the Muslimgauze Wikipedia entry. Out of a myriad of images, we just need a few to facilitate an encyclopedia entry. Could you suggest where in the entry would it be best to include images? At some point I also want to include sound--but out of 200 albums, it will be tough to figure out which minute long sound bite to use! Currently the entry has 'Starter Status'. I am gunning for "Feature Article" and know I have a long way to go. Any advice to get me on the path to that coveted status? Thank you in advance. I. Khider (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get stuck in mate

Mark Miremont, Justin Grant . . . en:WP is bristling with major, major talents meriting your editorial services. -- Hoary (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Couvrette? -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, I thought I'd already done something to that article! (Karsh is boring, his Grasshopper must be spectacular!). Oh, how about that, it's the article's first anniversary (or one-year anniversary, as they say). We'll see... Pinkville (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other news . . . I'd been thinking of nominating one or two clueful people as administrator. These are people who've been beavering away writing articles and making informative contributions to substantive discussions about these, rather than people who spend a lot of time hanging around "admin-related work" (as I now realize I used to do, before some other admin plucked me from obscurity and landed me in RfA). But I fear that this rantlet may have queered my chances with a large percentage of the peanut gallery I mean !voters. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed said rantlet... I'd be happy to help gee up some worthies to the exalted ranks of the seraphim [did I mix enough metaphors?]. Pinkville (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This young chap seems interested. -- Hoary (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkville, perhaps

Morning, Pink. I'm sorry to note that KP Botany seems to have vanished again. I don't know what happened, but his recent edit summaries include what's now at the end of this, on a subject I thought you might know about. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labor / Worker's Rights project

I recently drafted a proposal for a Worker's Rights & Labor Issues WikiProject ... I thought you might be interested, since you are working on the Anarchism project ...

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes again

They're being added. Hoary (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Green, Australian photographer

No mention on WP. This is a pity. Do you have any leads? It's a rather different genre from many of your interests, though. User_talk:Jenafalt#Australian_photographers. Tony (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do! Pinkville (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Green schmeen: exhale as deeply as you can, and inhale this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's a superb example of... what it is. In fact, I'm drowning in it. Too bad you decided to prune it a bit... Pinkville (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

I came here to look at someone who calls my nice sentences nonsense and find you are interested in 19th century photography. Why then are there no articles on the Pueblo and Hopi photographers like Adam Vroman or Kate Cory or Ben Wittick or thousands others? At the moment I have only very louse dictionaries right here, so cannot really do much about it myself.--Radh (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was a very nicely formed sentence that didn't make much sense. :~)
The problem for WP articles on 19th century photography is that there are so few editors interested in writing them. I've not been very active for 6 months or more, and my 19th c. photographic expertise centres on Japan, China and SE Asia. The most dedicated editor on (non-gadget) photographic subjects is Hoary. He might have something to add on the subject; you'll have to ask him. However, I am indeed interested in the subjects you raise and I do have some pertinent resources at my disposal... I'll see what I can do. Pinkville (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will also look around, but I am cut off from useful libraries right now and the internet is often next to useless for these people. There is aWikip article on Jo Mora (Hopi. 1904- 06) and a stump on Hillers (on the german Wikip).--Radh (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your reply on Chomsky/discussion: Self-hating jew was, I believe, used and overused around 1900 (Weininger debate?) and I must say it is nice to hit over the head with and has been used mainly for this reason, but not much else. Apart from Chomsky, as I get old, I find the very vocal and mainly intellectual part of the radical left wing in Germany that calls itself antideutsch very distasteful for this reason alone, correct as they may be in part. Blind anti-nationalism is as useless as the real thing, it is not the criticism that is necessarily wrong, it is the attitude.--Radh (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may need a short expansion, I am not a nationalist, but I know a bit about the life my grandfather (soldier in WW1, ruin in the 20s, early death partly through leaking gasses at his work) and my father (WW2) had to live, so know Germany today is simply not neonazi and evil to the core.--Radh (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your reply more carefully and there is really nothing fundamental in your attitude I could not share (with some reservations, of course). I am much more pessimistic about the chances of Israel to survive arab friendship (I know that the jews were treated much worse in Europe even before Hitler than in many arab countries most of the time). I also think my (rational or irrational) dislike of Chomsky, as well as your (rational or irrational) liking him, starts to get in the way of useful debate.--Radh (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You press the button, we do the rest

Yo Pink, care to look at this? (I'm going to bed.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Sorry for the delayed answer, but I've been inactive for a very long time. I'll see you soon. All the best Io (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Hiroh Kikai

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hiroh Kikai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- although this had effortlessly passed the same process. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't believe I managed to keep the irritation out of my response to this Kikai kaka... Then again, I didn't try too hard. Pinkville (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our man Jez made at least one very good point: that a book by X isn't a RS for a claim that X has achieved this or that. I fixed that and the article's a lot better for it; it may well have benefited in other ways too. So I approve of these "sweeps" when they're done intelligently, as that one was. Meanwhile, elsewhere.... Hoary (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your library

-- invites you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Goodness of Articles on photographers

Duh.

I haven't read the rest of this "Good" article. Frankly, I don't want to. --

Howard Zinn

Please discuss adding the video on Talk:Howard Zinn. Thank you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i had discussed this... but I've added a further comment anyway. Pinkville (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place Ville-Marie

Hi there,

I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,

-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. :~) As a matter of fact, I work at a museum that stores the architectural drawings for Place Ville-Marie, so I can certainly check out this fact for you. I recall that PVM went through some major changes before and during construction - I don't remember if these included changes in the number of floors, but if so, this might account for the discrepancy. I let you know my findings as soon as I can. Pinkville (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are saying that it went from 44 to 47 floors in the 1960s. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

My deletion of the philosophy of language template was accidental, so you were correct in restoring it. Chomsky is however a Trotskyist, and not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist at all. Regards. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he is in no way a Trotskyist... He is an anarchist, is a critic of Bolshevism and all phases of the Soviet Union, and has repeatedly reviled Trotsky's actions and apologetics for Soviet crimes. I regret that I don't follow your reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Pinkville (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, now I see you (properly) removed the 9/11 conspiracy theorists category. Folks should actually read the guy before they enroll him in the dis/favoured club of the day. Pinkville (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A solid New Year to you, Pinkville! Get a grip, stick it to The Man, and, um, if you have some free time then consider writing some more stuff about photography. (It'll soon be too cold to do much else, no?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! Hurry up and add some Alltagskultur oder Hochkultur content or we shall return to taunt you a second time. -- Verband Bildender Künstler der DDR 03:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


reply

makes sense. FC Toronto (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pinkville. You have new messages at Grim23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grim23 06:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pinkville. Thought I would drop you a line in view of your interest in the early history of photography and your keen involvement in Wikiproject History of Photography. I've been writing a number of articles in connection with Danish culture and have recently started this one on Danish photography. I would very much appreciate your assistance in helping to improve the article, either directly by your own edits or by providing suggestions on the article's talk page. If you think it is a candidate for DYK, please feel free to submit it.

Perhaps you can also let me know of any other active editors who might be interested in contributing. I'm afraid that up to now there has only been one other interested party as you will see from the edit history.

Once we've brought the article up to at least B quality, I hope to back it up with a number of biographies on Danish photographers and perhaps a few more on museums, galleries, exhibitions, etc. Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

Hello, Pinkville,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ☎ call me!

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Beato

I have nominated Felice Beato for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jan 1922 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo there,

Thanks for your hard work on wikipedia.
I have noticed that you have reverted three changes recently made on the Nigerian Civil war.
Please join the discussion that has been opened on the article talk page to see whether these changes will acquire consensus or not. If no concerns will be made I guess I will revert them as they were to the last revision.
Yours faithfully.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Felice Beato for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Pinkville,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)