User talk:Novem Linguae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

List of languages by number of native speakers[edit]

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[edit]

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)

DREAM Act[edit]

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)

ITN: 2010 cargo plane bomb plot[edit]

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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)