Jump to content

User talk:Novem Linguae

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.39.76.60 (talk) at 14:37, 4 December 2020 (→‎Your revisions accepted at Al Horford). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave a message. AddNovem Lingvae (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by number of native speakers

yep there was a mistake about turkish language all people who live in turkey r speakin turkish there z no other offical language so u cannot say 58 million thatz wrong it must be 71 million...c wut i mean? it z a fuckin damn conspiracy...made by some kurdish bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.120.254 (talkcontribs) 15:15, February 9, 2009

Koko

Good luck with that, I wish I could help you more with the Koko (Gorilla) article, but I've too much on my plate at the moment. I want to tell you what you are up against. What everyone believes about Koko, that she can use language, is actually false, a fact knowable by you. All you have to do is Google around and find any quotation by Koko that says anything which to a reasonable person constitutes clearly meaningful language. How is it possible that, after all these years of language use, you won't be able to find even one quote from her, even "Me banana want" or anything less, even, that will satisfy you that she can use language? Everything Koko does is explicable by her having learned that Penny will feed her if she makes sign-like motions, isn't it? Don't take this from me, research it for yourself. If Patterson had any proof, why doesn't she make it public? You can find a video of her answering a question, "Why don't you answer your critics?" Penny says that she doesn't feel obligated to deal with such negative people who refuse to believe things without proof! This is a scientist?

The problem is, how to write the section on Patterson's claims? I recommend just gathering the facts on the animal's biography, and stating the facts about how she got famous and what Patterson did claim, without ever giving the impression that it is knowably true, and therefore at least possibly false. Otherwise, the masses of people who believe Patterson's claims will demand proof that it's not true, and you'll have to cite something definative.Chrisrus (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DREAM Act

Thanks for the reminder -- I recall the issue and had meant to return to the article to look at it in further depth but in the end forgot to do so. I haven't gone back to the page, but my recollection is that the editor was trying to highlight the fact(?) that the provisions of the legislation applied to legal immigrants and undocumented or "illegal" aliens alike, so the article shouldn't focus exclusively on those in the country illegally. I think the editor was asked to provide a source for the claim, but, if I recall, the source offered was simply the executive summary of the legislation and didn't specifically refer to the issue that was the source of the controversy.

I have a feeling, perhaps unfounded, that there is possibly POV-pushing at play here, especially as regards the issue of terminology, but I have to plead ignorance about the legislation and so can't be sure. My suggestion would be to consult some articles on the bill to see whether what the editor claims is accurate. If the issue is one of terminology, use the terminology that most commonly occurs in reliable sources on the topic. If you feel your changes are likely to be controversial, explain them in advance on the article talk page and see if other editors want to contribute to the discussion, then make whatever changes you feel appropriate. Remember to use an edit summary in which you briefly explain the rationale for your changes and direct editors to the article talk page for a fuller explanation.

Your comment on the user's page is a good starting point. However, this editor appears to be a new user and may not be familiar with the use of a user talk page and so may not respond. --Rrburke(talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- tariqabjotu 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job!--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was viewed 9,900 times yesterday. Which is stellar.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- tx much for the star. I look forward to working with you as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parookaville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrum (software development), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Information icon Thanks for contributing to the article AV1. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

Katietalk 16:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Peter Hitchens, did not appear constructive and instead you misused sources to push a narrative that is not supported by the sources that you quote. Therefor you directly misused the wikipedia and spit on it's mission. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you still consider misusing the wikipedia to push your personal agenda consider a different medium for your personal opinions, since the sources you quote are not supporting the narrative you are pushing, and thus wikipedia is not the place for your politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1084:BFE0:95F8:FED6:E188:8D6 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:908:1084:BFE0:95F8:FED6:E188:8D6: Hello, sir. I encountered your edit during pending changes patrol. So right off the bat, that means that page receives a lot of vandalism. I stand by my original revert, because your edit was clearly not neutral point of view. You can't say things like "X person failed to deconstruct Y things", especially when he wrote an entire book trying to do that.
However, I did take a second look at the article just now. And the wording you were trying to change (the original wording) isn't very neutral either. It uses the POV word "fable". I have gone back and changed that sentence to something more neutral. [1]
Nothing personal, sir. Just doing my job. Which is to review edits on high vandalism pages, and revert anything that does not clearly improve the page. I hope you find the new wording satisfactory. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Garrison Page.

The news sources used to describe Ben Garrison are negatively biased toward him. He describes himself as a Conservative libertarian not an "alt-right" extremist. Please refrain from using strongly politically biased sites like the Guardian or Daily Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir. I reverted your edit because you did a search and replace of "Trump" for "Kim Jong-Un" article wide, damaging 7 areas of the article. [2] If you make just your "far right" to "conservative libertarian" edit, I'd probably be fine with that one. Feel free to edit it right now if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Both The Guardian and the Daily Beast are on our reliable sources list. I think this is more a word choice problem than a source problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do most of the Wikipedia have an anti-liberatarian and anti-conservative bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 (talk)
You did it again, sir. You replaced Trump with Kim Jong-Un on this talk page. If this is not intentional, you should check your computer and browser for viruses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 (talk)

Your revisions accepted at Al Horford

Hi. I noticed you accepted several revisions at Al Horford which didn't provide reliable sources. Please see WP:BLP (biographies of living persons policy), as on biographies, unsubstantiated claims such as these are not appropriate. I've reverted them. Thanks. Silikonz (💬🖋) 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Silikonz: I just figured he changed teams. Sorry about that. Pretty subtle vandalism. I'll be more careful on that article in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you noticed. Thanks. And do be more careful when reverting/accepting pending revisions. Silikonz (alternate account) (💬🖋) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism on kalaripayattu

Hi,

For the past month some unknown user is continuously trying to vandalize kalaripayattu. Please go through the edit history, you can see how that unknown anonymous user is in edit war and vandalising the article.

The anonymous user 2409:4073:380:22F7:B8BC:C04E:4492:B679 has some pending edits on the same page now.

Please either block him or make the page protected only for extended confirmed users.

Thank you.