User talk:LinguistAtLarge/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LinguistAtLarge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I don't think we are going to start separate articles about black hat and white hat SEO. There are two articles already covering SEO and Spamdexing, which provide good homes for all the content. This is the reason for my edits. Jehochman 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Black Hat/White Hat message you left on my talk page. If you make edits or moves along this lines, I will support them. Do we rename "Spamdexing" to be "Black Hat SEO" and create a redirect for Spamdexing? There would then be two articles: SEO and Black Hat SEO. That's the way the public talks about the topic. Before this happens, we should post a message on SEO:talk because a lot of people are watching those pages. Jehochman 12:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the work on the template. However I regret that you want to 'change' it towards a pidgin-exclusively template. I started it so that Valspeak, Internet Slang, Hip Hop slang, Leet and Globish would fit. I propose to make a different section/paragraph of the template and readd it. Pictureuploader 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The English dialects template is already too large. I'd say splitting this one in the two sections you proposed. Maybe the one named 'English pseudo dialects and slang' Pictureuploader 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The ones you proposed to me as subsections for the English dialects template. These names will do fine for a start. Pictureuploader 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A very belated welcome template for you :) I just saw your note at Talk:Glossary!

Welcome!

Hello, LinguistAtLarge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Quiddity 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! :) LinguistAtLarge 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi LinguistAtLarge! Thanks for your contributions. I had trouble determining the purpose of your edit to Silver Falls State Park, but after close inspection it looks quite good. You could help me and all those who watch articles by filling in the edit summary. I see that you have written good edit summaries in the past: possibly you aren't fully aware of the reasons for doing so. They are mentioned in the {{summary}} template here:

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. —EncMstr 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom's of Maine logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to join. Aboutmovies 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your edit summary for this edit: [1]. The old Chembox is deprecated and I'm helping move them. I review every single page I fix using AWB. I didn't see any problem earlier, and I don't see any problem now. There are more than 600 left, from a beginning of more than 2000 so it would be helpful if you can tell me exactly what's wrong, rather than revert it perfunctorily. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flickr loves you logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BetonSportsLogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya! Re Main article: History of Greenland#Home rule I actually formulated it like that first but when I previewed it, it looked wrong to have a section described as an article. Perhaps I'm being overly literal. I do think it's more accessible to the reader the way you present it; my final version was definitely a poor compromise. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure if there is consensus on the issue. I think having the link where it is increases usability and makes the article more consistent. But I'm open to other points of view. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

—EncMstr (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr!  LinguistAtLarge  17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding job on the template! Thanks for doing that!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

hola el cambio que hice (en el la pagina de la catedral de puebla) fue por que tus fuentes solo habla de que probablemente tal persona diseño la catedral sin dar mas razones, en cambio lo que puse lo saque del libro que mencioné el cual tengo a la mano (las calles de puebla) y fue editado aquí en puebla desde mediados del siglo pasado y tiene como fuentes gran cantidad de documentos de la época y que aun existen en la biblioteca palafoxiana, a los cuales ahora solo tienen acceso los investigadores,

que google books solo haga mención del libro y no lo muestre todo en linea no es razón para decir que no hay fuente, yo tengo el libro si quieres te mando un escaneo de la pagina y las fuentes que cita el mismo que obran en la biblioteca palafoxiana y que fueron redactados en la época

saludos --Rleonmx (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The information in Shawn Hogan's lawsuit regarding a world class virus infected over 100,000 computers in order to fraud ebay is not something that must be quiet. There are many negative topics on people at Wikipedia, and you are not free to choose who should be protected from that and who should not. The information is not made up, it was on national news, dude. Shawn Hogan has gotten a lot from life, and it needs to be told when he's done such nasty crimes. Why should he be given more rights then anyone else in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrAveTzT (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Moving this comment to the bottom of the page where it goes.  LinguistAtLarge  04:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note: "Speedy keep is rarely used. It implies that the user thinks the nomination was based on an obvious misunderstanding and that the deletion discussion can be closed early." (from WP:GD) Both halves of the sentence need to be true. I think it's incorrect to say there is any obvious misunderstanding in the nomination. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment.  LinguistAtLarge  16:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good on you. --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the comment. There are still many nuances of Wikipedia that I am learning :)  LinguistAtLarge  16:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That goes for all of us, however experienced and however many hats we've already accrued. I like your attitude. Have you ever considered becoming an admin? --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the request for adminship page in the past, but I'm not sure I have enough experience to be an admin. Would you have an opinion on that?  LinguistAtLarge  16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I see enough in your contribs to trust you with the tools now, but you'll fall foul of some of the !voters who can't see past edit counts. But it's not impossible you'd pass - you're an unusual candidate, someone who's been here a very long time but hasn't racked up a massive edit count. I suggest you carry on the way you're doing - your attitude will shine through for anyone who bothers to look at the specifics of your edits - and sign up at WP:ER for a review that'll highlight any shortcomings you have. I'd also suggest you peruse WP:ADMIN and read up about being an admin. Final advice - ensure your knowledge of policy of whatever admin tools you might consider using is strong and up to date. No-one says you need to use them all - but being able to demonstrate (for example) good knowledge of deletion through appropriate CSD and XfD work is invaluable. I'll leave you alone now... but do drop me a line when the ER is well developed, as I am interested in nominating you. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to say - keep up the mainspace work. Good mainspace work attracts support - it's what we're here for after all. And you're making valuable contributions there. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Dweller. I'll look at the editor review and read more about being an admin. I'll drop you a line later on. I see the note at the top of your user page and I hope you are feeling better!  LinguistAtLarge  16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your good work. I hope you're enjoying the holiday season, what's left of 2008, and heading into 2009 with high spirits and good health. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome and I reciprocate with best wishes to you in this holiday season and heading into 2009!  LinguistAtLarge  17:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else on going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For working with ChildofMidnight in rescuing Dandelion coffee from the jaws of deletion! MuZemike (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, MuZemike! :) (I think ChildofMidnight was more instrumental in fixing the article than I was though)  LinguistAtLarge  00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to share recognition for a bit of good work we did. Thanks for your help. I enjoy reading your comments at AfD and appreciate your good efforts here. Enjoy the rest of your 2008 and have a very happy New Year. And don't drink any dandelion coffee, I think it may be toxic. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My gift to you: a new article on Analogical conceptual dictionary. Have fun! ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! :)  LinguistAtLarge  01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, you're welcome, you're welcome. Better you than me on that academic stuff. Ugh. :) Here's a little lighter fare. Ogba language. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you even interested in linguistics related articles? For all I know you are trying to get away from them! Oh well, here's another new one Hans Jakob (Esperantist) and one you might want to have on your watchlist ;) Esperantist. Let me know if this isn't an area you're interested in, and you'd rather me notify you of interesting article in another subject area. Naturalist beverages? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think my username gives me away-- I am interested in linguistics topics as well as natural foods.  LinguistAtLarge  03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the dictionary article got deleted. :( What was it promoting? Are you serious about natural foods? There are a lot of raw food places out here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion, because it was promoting a dictionary website. The material was poorly translated from Spanish and not salvageable. I created conceptual dictionary, which was what was actually needed.  LinguistAtLarge  03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of kidding about the :( That article looked like an utter mess. I'm thankful no one will have to read it. I kind of felt bad that you'd have to weed through it actually. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one Pariah language? :)ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And if you're into natural food you have to be into Yoga right? What do you make of this one Egyptian Yoga? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey it's Analogical conceptual dictionary back! Where is user:Urinalysis? Am I going to get in trouble for getting the name wrong? I can't help it. I come from a medical background... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism - I'd like to invite you to add the Terrorism deletion watchlist to your watched articles, as it will allow you to be updated whenever a related article is proposed for deletion. In total, 40% of articles sent/added to Wikiproject Terrorism have requests for cleanup outstanding, whether better sourcing, orphaned or in need of images...please feel free to see the entire list. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks  LinguistAtLarge  19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Rescue Barnstar and bar. Citation. Like a Batman out of hell to the Man cave he flew. One and a half steps ahead of the Oxford dictionary, he documented notices of an established phrase of recent coining, still fresh enough to be mistaken for an NNN (non-notable neologism). You're a hero Linguist, consider yourself promoted to the comparative—LinguistAtLarger! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS Hmmm, on reflection, I realise I'm assuming a gender for you here Linguist. On even more reflection I just can't bring myself to gender-neutralise the text. Feel free to change the pronouns in the citation as you wish. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you so much Alastair! You guessed right on the pronoun by the way. :)  LinguistAtLarge  16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if Wiki works like a man cave for some editors.

Not enough ladies at Wiki imo.

But with heros like you around, maybe more will settle in.

I can't help wondering if the lads pictured at Virility will appreciate the new link at "their" article stub.

People have tried with no success to remove them.

I got a good humoured comment on my musical taste when I once tried replacing them with ZZ Top.

The wonderful world of Wiki. Have a great day Linguist! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are man caves the last hold-outs of patriarchy? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Might it be that someone who has a man cave has a lot in common with a caveman?  LinguistAtLarge  21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer is (B). In my opinion anyway. Thanks for thought though CoM. lol Alastair Haines (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptol. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KP Botany (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  LinguistAtLarge  00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have an image on your user page that I'd like to put on mine. Okay with you? It won't be in particularly fine company, but it's a gorgeous picture. --KP Botany (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and use it on your user page. :)  LinguistAtLarge  00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I keep putting it in the wrong place. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)  LinguistAtLarge  03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You've uploaded File:Ocean Pacific logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks bot. I'll let this go since it's been converted to PNG by User:718 Bot. LinguistAtLarge • Msg  00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A comma-separated list of names implies that the various options are equal.

Well, I just tried to solve a problem because half of the vandalism on that article is about the naming. I think that it would be a good idea to have some expression like equally or something like that....

Warrington (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I understand where you're coming from. I just thought the lead sentence didn't read very well like that: French fries, or equally chips, fries, or French-fried potatoes are thin slices of potato ... I'll put a note on the talk page asking about the best wording for the lead sentence.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think that the British are not happy with the French fries because they invented fish and chips... I think that in some way it need to be expressed that the expressions are equal, so the British should calm down.

Warrington (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that, but I think the wording needs to be thought about carefully. Another issue is that Americans don't understand "chips" at all as meaning french fries, but the reverse is true-- most British prefer to use "chips", but also understand "fries".  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  14:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that is why the article is called French fries. I really do not care or mind, but some British (I guess British) are vandalizing the article time to time and want to change the info in the infobox and everywhere to "chips". That is why I tried to find a solution.

I see someone else has removed the "and equally" from the lead sentence. I think something like this is best discussed on the talk page for the article, to see if we can reach a consensus on the best wording.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is Makrakis... I am tired about this. Vandals are welcome to do whatewer they want.

Warrington (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, thank you to everyone who has done work the last few weeks on the last two COTWs. This week we have by request Oregon and California Railroad, part of the lands involved in the Oregon Land Fraud Scandal. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have longtime politician Grattan Kerans, which hopefully can be turned into a nice DYK entry. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Jonathan Park logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Jonathan Park logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI there is a guy who is reverting the changes you made to Gpirate. I reverted it, and he reverted it back. Also he removed the AFD template, (I put it back, he took it off, I put it back...) anyway he has been warned twice about it. I don't want to get tied into any 3RR thing, so I will leave it as is for a bit, I doubt it is going to pass AFD anyway.--kelapstick (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This template has serious flaws and should first be discussed before putting it up. I will give detailed comments later on Template talk:Mafia, but please refrain from inserting it. - Mafia Expert (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, we'll carry on the conversation on the templates talk page.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How do i request for a cleanup or non-delete of Gpirate

Please do not delete Gpirate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinjajames (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the 3 criteria in WP:WEB, and if your site matches one of them, then provide reliable sources to prove it. If you need help adding those sources, I'll be glad to help, just post the URLs here.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  01:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This language needs work... ??? While you're at it, this one is kind of interesting looking... Xo'ini dialect.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Meroo (or Merovian)—the article can't seem to decide—looks interesting, but after a cursory look, it seems it may not meet notability guidelines, unfortunately.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, it does have a flag and "1 to 3 (2008, est.)" speakers. Maybe the bar is too high? :) It sounded interesting anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has a flag, and it says there are 1 to 3 native speakers, but the bar for Wikipedia is verifiable notability, which this conlang doesn't seem to have. For all we know, this could be something made up in one day. It's painful, but I had to nominate it for a deletion discussion.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In deference to native Merovian speakers, I wonder if the deletion discussion should exclude X, Q, Y, and W, which their language doesn't use. Do other languages have flags? Maybe it would have more luck as a micronation? A language based micronation? Hmmmm... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that article was bogus right off the bat. I didn't read it carefully and it sounded exciting. I suppose in trying to assume good faith, I was susceptible to this sort of insidious deception. I created a mirage of positive thinking and was easily duped by intraweb trickery! Thanks also for cleaning up the other article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all! :)  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is no problem with references to this article, I can add even more, but this article is very short. I do not want to expand it for now. I can add more bibliography, but I do not want to multiply sources in so short article. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the inline reference that you did. On a side note, I don't think it's ever a problem to add as many references as possible to an article. :) Good job!  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I see you're creating more inauguration stubs, which is good. But they really shouldn't be in Category:United States presidential inaugural addresses when there's no discussion of the speeches. It's making it awfully hard for other editors to evaluate the category on its merits when it's clogged with articles that don't belong there. I assumed you must have seen my remarks in the CFD earlier today, but I guess not... At any rate, I had already cleaned out the first batch of stubs that you created yesterday -- so would you mind going through these new ones and taking all of them out, too? Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got it fixed. All articles in Category:United States presidential inaugural addresses now directly deal with an inaugural address. There are three inaugural articles that I left in since the address is discussed directly in the inauguration aritlce—Washington, Roosevelt, and Reagan. (Thanks for your patience)  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that so expeditiously, Linguist. (and without complaining, either - wow! not always the case, I can assure you) "Alls well that ends well" sums things up pretty well for me. Okay, so now that we've got them all in the proper categories, there's another issue that needs to be dealt with. Are you familiar with using sort keys for categories? If you take a glance at Category:United States presidential inaugurations, you'll immediately notice that they're not all sorted/arranged in alphabetical order by last name, as they should be. I've already taken care of some of them, but most are still sorted by first name, because that's the default when there aren't any sort keys. (If you need an intro or refresher on sort keys, you might take a look at the sort keys for the categories on the articles in Category:United States presidential inaugural addresses.) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Say, while you're at it, you can also make sure they're in the proper stub categories. As I just explained to another editor who created some of those other stub articles, all you have to do is add the following after the regular categories: {{US-politics-stub}} {{US-hist-stub}}. I've already done some myself, including the three FDR stubs. Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion!  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging this discussion with the larger inaugural page makes sense.

I would like to add a few facts from my experience as a Silver ticket holder:

Although it may be true that only the purple area was officially closed because of overcrowding, it is clear that many people who held other tickets, especially silver, could not penetrate the crowds to reach their destinations.

It is also clear that at critical moments, the police did not have information to direct people to the correct locations. Aside from the foolish and tragic decision to send ticket holders into the tunnel, ticketholders were misdirected. For example, when it was clear that Third Street had been closed off, silver ticket holders were directed to 1st street by at least one police officer despite the fact that the Silver viewing area ran in the opposite direction, from 3rd to 4th street.

What is clear is that, aside from the size of the crowds, insufficient attention was given to how ticketed people would penetrate the thousands of unticketed people who crowded around the parade route trying to gain access. Additionally, poor communication among police together with inadequate signage contributed enormously to the problem.

Although purple ticket holders were not the only ones affected, the phrase "Purple Tunnel of Doom" and now "purplegate" have already entered the folklore of this day and it is probably pointless to attempt to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.51.26 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much!  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Top work on that and on lettuce sandwich as well. :) the wub "?!" 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Wub.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I too came here to commend you for your work. Maybe you could upload pictures (free ones, anyway) to commons instead, that would be even better. Rl (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've opened a second AFD for Frank Smith (fireman). As a participant in the first AFD, I thought you might want to review and contribute your opininion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New article if you're interested. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mhata? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've marked mhata to be moved to Wiktionary, as that seems to be the appropriate place for it. I did some cleanup on Cacán, but I wasn't able to find a lot of information on it.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Howdy to all those in WikiProject Oregon land! To start, thanks to those who helped improve Grattan Kerans and Oregon and California Railroad as part of the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’ll try and start some new articles with a red link elimination drive on a couple of Oregon lists. So, you have your pick of prisons, or museums. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, LinguistAtLarge. You were kind enough to comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taffy_jones -- some new information has come to light and you may wish to revise your recommendation. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Marshall. The AfD has been closed, so I added merge tags to the articles.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your kind words! Drmies (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome :)  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've given up reporting bugs, also given up reporting incomplete nominations etc. It works as long as we check it. Most of the bugs seem to be one offs and can't be replicated.

It also has an incomplete list of CSD things.... etc etc etc

Let's delete the article twice! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya. But it is a handy tool to have and speeds things up quite a bit. :)  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I answered on your question on Template talk:Mafia. I think it is fine now to use it. We can still think how to refine it even more. At the moment I am more worried about the major changes in the Mafia article, which might even affect the template. May you should give your opinion on the Talk:Mafia page. - Mafia Expert (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) Thanks for helping out. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you moved the article "Tokyo Photoelectric Meridian Circle Catalog" to "Tokyo Photoelectric Meridian Circle", and rewrote the intro.
I can see your point, but did you look at What links here? There are roughly 80 articles about stars that link to "Tokyo Photoelectric Meridian Circle Catalog", where the links are displayed in the form PMC plus numbers, such as PMC 90-93. If possible I would like put the abbreviation PMC back into in the first line of the article, and put more of the focus back on the catalogs -- I think astronomers would of course be interested in the instrument, but that the catalogs would be what they actually use. Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the lead again to give more of a balance between the instrument and the catalogs. I pondered it for a while, and I'm honestly not sure how the article should be titled. Perhaps it should be moved back to your original title. In any case, feel free to do what you think is best for Wikipedia. Thanks for the message. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I like it now, and I'm fine with the title. There will be a redirect, but it should be almost instantaneous. Now that the article actually exists, I see no problem in using the title that we think fits the best. -- Margin1522 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks for creating the article in the first place, by the way. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Article meets the 6th notability criterion for musicians and ensembles, as 3 of the members are also members of Decrepit Birth.

MinorLegend (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to verify that? I've also made a note of this on the AfD. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on SOASTA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Ron Ritzman (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I had an admin say it's a different article from the AFDd version. My apologies. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello to WikiProject Oregon peoples! Thank you to those who helped start some new articles on prisons and museums. This week, in honor of Oregon’s 150th b-day, we have the slightly older Oregon Constitution and the first state governor John Whiteaker. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of this article and the AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. I agree with your conclusion, but I still think it's interesting. :) KEEP!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the sentiment, but we have to follow guidelines for AfDs :) And I agree it could be an interesting research topic. (I wish I had more time!) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What is a steamed sandwich? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just a sandwich that has been heated up with steam. It was on AfD a while back and I was considering improving it, but I don't think there would be much of an article in it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your input...but i constantly see lyric pages all over wikipedia...if i site the record company, can i still post? thanks

Hi Abdecker, if the lyrics are copyrighted and non-free, they can't be posted on Wikipedia. See WP:C for more information. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ling I saw a write up of a show about the world's endangered languages and I thought of you. Have you heard about this? The show The Linguists airs Feb. 26 and is a PBS documentary about searching for speakers of dying languages. Fun stuff. Might be worth an article on the show too now that I think about it. The Newsweek article I'm looking at talks about the shows search for Chulym speakers in remote Siberia. The article says "every two weeks, one of the world's 7,000 languages vanishes." ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds interesting. I'm reading the Newsweek article now! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just started User:Rjanag/The Linguists to prepare this article, and look what I find! There are some more sources there, and if you guys have anything I haven't found yet feel free to add it! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that, it's in mainspace now! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Nice job on the article! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tckma (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated How do I make a contribution on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello LinguistAtLarge,

I've just given you Rollbacker rights. You seem to be doing a lot of good work here! Owen× ☎ 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was unexpected, but thank you very much. I will now read up on how I can use it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon members. A big thank you to everyone who helped last week with the Oregon Constitution and John Whiteaker. This week, we have by request Clyde Drexler and a newer article in Religion in Oregon (I thought surveys said we didn’t have religion in Oregon). Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work. --  Chzz  ►  16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

I just wanted to ask, how did you manage to source so many refs so quickly? I was trying, at the same time, to find further info using google.

Just wondered if you had any tips about sourcing such things.

Cheers!

--  Chzz  ►  10:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just did a quick Google news search and opened a handful of articles in Firefox tabs. Then the tedious part is formatting the actual citation for insertion in the article. For that I am testing a Firefox plugin that I wrote, that helps facilitate this step. Do you use Firefox? If so, I'm planning on uploading it to AMO so others can test it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Captain Obvious" article has been through AFD a few times, and has been deleted. That said, you seemed to be doing something with that try at "Captain obvious", so I userfied it at User:LinguistAtLarge/Captain obvious for you. Once it's cleaned up, it might be worth a shot at WP:DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the userfication. I'll see if I can make an encyclopedic article out of this-- I'm not completely convinced of that yet. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some advice: references that use the term, instead of discussing it, are unlikely to pass at DRV. This was a distinction raised in the last AFD and in the last DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. That is precisely what I am looking for now. There are plenty of places where the term is used, but we need a few reliable sources that actually discuss and establish notability for this neologism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reuserfied it again. Your article has exactly the same problems as the previously deleted Captain Obvious. "Captain Obvious points out the obvious[bad source][news story about a glancingly related topic]. 'Thank you, Captain Obvious' is a response to a comment that points out the obvious[ref that uses the term instead of defining it]. There are lots of superheroes named Captain Obvious[a bunch of refs to works of fiction that aren't notable and aren't significant sources of commentary on their own]. A wood#in popular culture-style list of things that happen to have 'captain obvious' in their name."

No source is about this particular sarcastic response; it either uses it or talks about things which are references to it. Without any sources that actually talk about this sarcastic term, we're stuck with "Foo bar is bar which is foo, here are some things named foo bar." That's just not enough, not with an AFD explicitly deleting that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You suggested in the discussion that the article be redirected to Paleofuture.com and several other editors concurred. However, I felt that Retro-futurism was a better choice for a target. However, since this wasn't suggested in the discussion I would have no objection to it being retargeted to Paleofuture.com. I've also added a link to your article in Retro-futurism. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's dead Jim I just noticed that http://paleofuture.com doesn't seem to exist anymore. It goes to a godaddy.com parking page. Unless the site's been moved you may either want to G7 the article or update it to say it's closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. You now have to include the "www".--Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I think Retro-futurism is actually the better target for redirection. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the trivia cleanup. WillOakland (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to working pop culture references into an article. I moved the unreferenced material to the talk page in this case, pending reliable references to source each bit. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm restoring this "Four flushing" conversation that was removed by 76.22.74.141 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "oh, well screw you then". diff. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again restoring this conversation removed by User:WillOakland. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds like a great idea. How would we go about it, exactly? SMSpivey (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it. I was thinking we needed to do this the same way when I saw we were doing it differently. Anywho, yay for getting it done! SMSpivey (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! Why don't you start working on the code problems and i'll keep adding info. Also, I'll probably go back through and fix all of the counties (i'm sure many of them just lead to disambigs) after the info is all inputted. SMSpivey (talk)

Hey, I'll come back through tomorrow evening and see if there is anything else to clean up. I'm super tired and have an interview tomorrow, so happy hunting! SMSpivey (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware there were so many options to link to. I totally agree with your boldness. Nice job! - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of it either until I did some searching, and then it seemed like the right solution. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• edit

Indeed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny rugby. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the text was lifted from the site you mentioned, it is a copyvio that needs to go. Since the article is already in the wrong place, do you happen to have the time to write a proper stub on the right title? So the copyvio can be purged? I'd do it myself, but I don't do my best writing in the middle of the night. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the World Famous Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on Clyde and [the lack of] Religion in Oregon. This week (as many have noticed), we have the “it was a red link” and by request Eugene Station and Heceta Head in honor of the work that’s been going on at Oregon Coast. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. On a side note, does the recent news of Portland being the unhappiest place in all the land make people there more unhappy? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input concerning the inclusion of homosocratic in Wikipedia. The world must defended from whatever you are defending it from. I will simply trust that the damage caused by a word coming into usage prematurely because Wikipedia (A homosocratic Encyclopedia) with a neologism for a name permits people to be able to find it's definition and application.

Please join me in asking Wikipedia to facilitate the posting of non articles. Simply put tags on insignificant, non notable items and words that do not meet your standards and let the users of Wikipedia decide if they want them included in searches or not.

Thank you for you homosocratic interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottprovost (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think you have to branch out to AN/I? It's already a cesspool of administrators who've contributed nothing but their smart mouthed responses, deal only with issues where a dozen other administrators are already causing a mess, and needs less input rather than more from administrators (okay, sadly not even subparallel phrasing). I almost want to strongly oppose you for this reason alone. What is going on right now at AN/I that you, as an administrator, should add to? --KP Botany (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. My intent with mentioning ANI and AIV, was concerned with reporting users there when appropriate, something that I haven't done. By this I mean I need to be more active in the community in a role of detecting and doing something about users who are disruptive and causing damage to Wikipedia. I just glanced through some of the drama going on right now on WP:AN/I, and you're right-- it's not very palatable. In fact, if I want to increase my role in rectifying disruption and damage, I think the very first thing I should do is dialog directly with the user in question. A lot of users can be made to see the "error of their ways" so to speak, just by having some dialog, and asking them what they are up to. Opening an incident report itself will probably have a negative effect in many cases, simply because raising it to an "incident" would make the user feel attacked.

Nice flowers on your userpage by the way :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good answer. Now hopefully, if/when you become an admin, you remember it, as it's the type of no nonsense approach that reduces wiki-Drama, thereby improving the atmosphere and making room for what Wikipedia could be: a great encyclopedia of knowledge. Well, remember that and having the guts to not comment every month one of the usual half-dozen suspects gets a post about them on AN/I and every administrator on the pedia sees it as a chance to make a name for themselves.

Yes, the flowers are rather nice. --KP Botany (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will do my best to remember this and abide by it. I appreciate your concern and your input. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Download! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Awarded for rewriting Tourism in Bolivia to AfD-passing standards in just under 21 minutes flat.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure.

On another note, I think you'd make an excellent admin and am willing to nominate you for that post if you wish.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Another admin offered to nominate me back in December, but I wasn't sure I was ready. I think I've learned a lot since then, and I'll humbly accept the nomination if you'd like to do that for me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LinguistAtLarge.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't normally transclude it till the nomination had been formally accepted and the questions answered. You might want to undo that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck LL. I hope my support doesn't sink your candidacy. :) How was the PBS special? I forgot to tape it. Maybe I'll see if it's going to be replayed. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, new administrator! Good luck.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Just what I needed for dinner. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's your mop. (It's a shame we can't put non free images in user talk space) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ron, it looks like I'm going to be a janitor now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Welcome to the new admin club! --GedUK  10:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you asked for a second opinion about this user on WP:ANI. I didn't notice the request when I dealt with him. Did you want some additional feedback on what you should do? I'd be happy to explain why I did what I did: delete the article, close the AfD, block the account, and semi-protect another article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gogo Dodo. That is pretty much what I thought should be done. The reason I posted to ANI was because I'm brand new and I'm wary of doing something wrong. What I plan to do is work through the different pages at WP:NAS to build my confidence before really starting to use the tools. But since I ran across this user and the recreated article, I didn't think I should ignore it. Deleting the article is pretty clear-cut per CSD G4, but I was just wondering about blocking the account. While it seems obvious they are the same person (similar username and creating the same article), I wasn't sure if that is enough evidence that they were the same user evading a block or not. I also wasn't sure if they needed to be warned before being blocked. Anyway, if you have any advice on these points, I'm all ears. I'm sure I can find a lot of it on the blocking policy page as well. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with asking a question. Better to ask than not to ask. =) I remember when I first got the extra buttons and it scared me too (deleting the wrong thing "Hello, Main Page!" though you can't do that anymore or blocking the wrong person like myself), but you will get the hang of it soon enough.

The similar user name and recreating the same article is enough evidence to block the second account. Add in the vandalism/BLP issue on the Creve Coeur, Missouri article and the evidence is even stronger. I semi-protected the article after I checked the history and noticed that the BLP issue has been going on for months. There is no place for stuff like that here, so I set the semi-protection. The length of the protection is a bit unusual, but since the issue has been going on for so long, the more normal week long protection would not likely to have helped. It appears that somebody really doesn't like the police department there. I did find it amusing that I issued the first block on the Scott5306 account and here I am coincidentally blocking the Scott5307 account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on this AFD. Please add your !vote there on these. items. --RadioFan (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a recommendation for the article yet, because I still might try to find a source for the claim to notability "Europe's highest canal lock system". Although I'm not sure if he means "highest" as in elevation or "nothernmost". I'll give my !vote on AfD in due time :) Thanks for the message. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to inform you that I have closed your RFA as successful. The community has seen it fit to put its trust in you, and so you have been given the admin tools. I hope you'll continue to work within that trust as a sysop to this project. You can test out your tools at New Admin School. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or any other admin around. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 23:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will do my best to demonstrate to the community that placing their trust in me was warranted. WP:NAS here I come. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations. And thanks in advance for agreeing to unblock me no matter how eggregious my behavior. I really appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, very funny. :) I'm sure you'll never have egregious behavior, so we'll never find out. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right. It's a good thing bad spelling isn't blockable. Congratulations again and enjoy your awesome new powers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that when you created {{Template:Knives}} you included Lajinaa. I have just taken that article to AfD here, because I could find no confirmation of all its picturesque detail about pirates, and only slight hints that there might really be a kind of knife called Lajinaa. Did you include it in the template on the basis of the Wikipedia article, or did you have some other source? Congratulations on your new mop, by the way! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it simply on the basis of the Wikipedia article. I don't have any other sources. Right now, I'm seeing a lot of Wikipedia mirrors, but haven't been able to find much more. I'll see if I can find any sources and comment on the AfD. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear ye, hear ye WikiProject Oregon villagers. Tis time for another edition of ye ol’ Collaboration Of Thine Week. Thank you to those who worked on Eugene Station and Heceta Head the last few weeks, may the Black Death spare ye family. This time we have a we little stub in the John Ross Tower and by request Bill Walton in honor of a pretty good chance at making the playoffs for the Blazers (sorry can’t think of a good Old English type language for that one, but if we go with Olde English 800, then the Jail Blazers could come into play). Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I am a Wikipedia newbie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, keep 'em coming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, Wikipedia requires us to both verify the subject of an article, and show how it is notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word). To do this we need to cite reliable sources. Of the above three sources, the first is discarded as a broken link, and the third is considered a primary source (See [3] and [4]) and not eligible for use in establishing notability. So, to sum this up, you need to find multiple reliable sources (secondary sources from reputable publications) that provide significant coverage of the subject to establish notability under the criteria of the general guideline or the specific guideline for organizations. While some of the comments in the deletion discussion might have been erroneous, we still need to show notability through multiple reliable sources to have an article on the subject. If you can find reliable sources to demonstrate notability, then the article can (and should (and will)) be restored. If you want, go ahead and show me the sources you are able to find here, and I'll take the initiative of restoring the article if appropriate. Thanks! One more thing-- The fact that everything said in the article is true is not under discussion. As an encyclopedia we must verify this through the use of reliable, secondary sources: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the corrected link to the Times Obituary - [5] - and here is another link to a group at Stanford - http://tizard.stanford.edu/groups/sociality/wiki/2effb/Open_minds._Open_systems._A_report_on_Year_1-_4..html. I am not requesting that the group should be kept, but I feel that a proper debate should be had. Churchill JCR has been contactes by several alumni requesting that it take action against this deletion. This is the main organisation which brought about one of the most major pieces of legislative change in the UK in the 20th century. How is that not notable? WikiWebbie (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I responded here [6]. "Note that this was an AFD, not a PROD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Front). My closure was based on the deletion discussion, where I interpreted consensus to be "delete". Perhaps the correct venue for this would be WP:DRV or at least to open a new AfD to reach a broader consensus. I'm a new admin, so I'm not entirely sure what the correct procedure for this is, but a simple undelete with no additional process doesn't seem to jibe with deletion policy." — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howdy WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week. A big thank you to those who worked on Calapooya Mountains and Portland Saturday Market, both saw some great improvements. For this week we have two great opportunities for DYKs with Brian McMenamin and Algoma, Oregon. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Haltzman may be notable (at least, a case might be made for it); but the thing I deleted was a promotional flyer for him and his works. I certainly won't object if you create a new, non-spammy stub. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement for Haltzman, his book and his therapeutical theories. If you really feel he's that notable, I'd suggest starting all over from scratch, without the publisher's blurbs and the unquestioning parrotting of his theories, his claims of notability, etc., and with proper citations. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

adding the deletion discussion to my AfD. I can't get the delsort tag to work properly; should be able to get it sorted out in a few days. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js script? I had problems with it until I removed the stylesheet (Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css) for some reason. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was using jayvdb's, I'll try that one instead. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't work for me either, I can't get a delsort tab, unless I also load up Animum's easyblock.js (see User:Dank55/monobook.js), and in that case, the delsort tab appears, but clicking on it doesn't do anything. It may be that there's some kind of limit on the number of tabs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Try just adding these four lines to your monobook.js to enable the delsort.js script.

importScript('User:Quarl/util.js');
importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js');

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's working now, thanks! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Great news! Glad it's working for you. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I was already done for the day. Your input is always welcome. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Merges This is a stupid mistake that I've made several times before. Honestly, I'm not sure when any song article should be deleted, since Category:Redirects from songs exists. Is there ever a time to delete an article on a song? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I came across this article at CSD and can see the beginnings of a mess here. I've left a message for the restoring admin on his/her talkpage. Do let me know if you agree. Regards. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you 100%. If the subject of the article is notable and we should have an article on it, then it will withstand another AfD or DRV. Nightstallion, who restored it, should have taken the initiative to seek consensus again before (DRV) or after (another AfD) undeleting it. The simplest solution is probably to re-list it on AfD, with an explanation as to what has happened. I actually knew about this, and was going to follow it up, but it slipped my mind. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, no. But I still feel I was right.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Linguist, if I can have a moment of your time, let me ask you: do admins still have fun (with editing, that is), or is one a full-time bureacrat from the moment one is approved? (I just read your Ulam spiral, and that is fun!) I'm sort of trying to figure out if I have that kind of ambition at all. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I've tried hard to not get caught up in the drama of being an admin. I've used the tools for things like moving over redirects, closing some AfD discussions, speedy deleting spam etc. But I am still heavily involved with actual editing. For example, I just finished (re-)writing Underwire bra over the last few days, which was on AfD as a stub. So if you try, you don't have to let becoming an admin ruin you. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--and thanks for the link to that article. I learned something: I'm going to wear one myself--it might save my life, esp. since I like to live dangerously! Seriously, thanks. I wish I could work on important articles such as that one--all I got is stuff like Biscuit#Beaten_biscuits. Later, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Biscuits are important too. By the way would you like the rollbacker flag? By looking at your contribs, you might be able to make use of it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about it, yes. But you know, dear Linguist, one of my (many) problems is that I'm not a very good geek (I still write HTML code by hand, so to speak...). Is it difficult to use? If not, I think I would like it, for occasional use. Thanks for checking, and thanks for asking! Drmies (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're now a rollbacker. You can read more about it here WP:ROLL. What it allows you to do it to quickly revert vandalism. When viewing a page's history, you'll now see a "rollback" link by the latest item. If you click it, it will revert all the consecutive changes that the latest editor did. So if a vandal edited the article 3 times, then "rollback" will revert all 3 changes. Be careful, since it will undo all the edits of the latest editor, not just the last edit. Also, it should only be used in blatant, unequivocal cases of pure vandalism. Read WP:ROLL before using it. And have fun! :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Let's roll! Thanks! I looked at WP:ROLL a couple of weeks ago, and there's a test, a sandbox, so I'll go and try that. Oooooh the havoc I can wreak now... How do seasoned WPians put it? "Bwuhahahaha!" Drmies (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

:) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Linguist. I think I've addressed everything. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking pretty good! I left you a few more comments on the talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the Indonesian project there - SatuSuro 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know how to express my utter and complete thanks to you, LinguistAtLarge. Suffice to say I am absolutely impressed by you and recognize your awesome contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you! Basket of Puppies 02:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I Basket of Puppies award you, LinguistAtLarge, this Barnstar on 27 April 2009 for your tireless efforts and great contributions to New Waveland Cafe and Clinic. Thank you!!!

Thank you. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy as a hoax (which may or may not be legal process wise). Regardless, I thought you might want to have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out the current state of play with the AfD - I think it's now suitable for immediate closure as a delete because of (a) snow, (b) author's admissions on his talk page, (c) author blanking the article. Cheers andy (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All done I think. I made quite a few changes to the lead. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Linguist. But isn't it a language and literature GA rather than a social sciences? Or is one a sub-category of the other? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it under language and literature Wikipedia:GA#Language_and_literature, in the Words and Linguistics section. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I see you have done more work on this article and continue to be impressed by your expansion of this article... the DYK fact is set to hit the homepage tomorrow and they are even using the (second) patent picture. Again, excellent work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the Gourdinian Language is under fire, but I thought this one might fare better? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's this. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And check this search out: the "camel" note is the first hit. Seems legit! Drmies (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it looks legit to me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week, Volume 82. Thank you to those who worked on Algoma, Oregon‎ and Brian McMenamin, both saw some great improvements and are up for DYks. This week we have Mary Alice Ford and by request Waterfront Blues Festival. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Live long and phosphorous. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add the sources you've found to the article? I think this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your work with the Historic buildings of Mexico City Centro template! Coding is NOT my forte but I need to link the articles Im writing about all the cool stuff in the historic center of Mexico City. I appreciate it mucho.189.233.13.237 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I hope you like how I organized it into different types of buildings. Or do you have any other suggestions on how to organize it? ({{Historic buildings of Mexico City Centro}}) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think it is great. As I write more and more articles about the historic places in the center of town--- there are a "chingo" (a whole hell of a lot) of them --- we may have to think about reorganization or split of the table. But where are nowhere near that yet. I have thought of a table linking all the buildings that have murals (like those by Rivera, Orozco, Siqueiros etc.) in or on them, as this is an important aspect of Mexican culture. As soon as I can get back into these buildings (just about EVERYTHING is shut down because of the swineflu, even Chapultepec Park!), there will be more mural photos. (Yup, legal here in Mexico. Had a big discussion about this in Commons some time ago with murals I took photos of for Metro Tacubaya.)Thelmadatter (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Underwire bra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations! All your hard work paid off! Fame! Fortune! Drmies (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you checked in. I have attempted to respond to all your Snyder, New York concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few more comments on the talk page. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it now compliant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left another comment on the talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed two more images and replied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having any luck finding sources from non-English speaking cultures. Do you think I should rename "Truce term" as "Truce term,(English-speaking cultures)". Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I would leave it as it is. You might even add a section at the bottom for other languages where you mention that the only available research in this area is concerning the use of truce terms in English. Adding something in parenthesis to the title is intended for use as disambiguation between more than one article, which isn't the case here. For now, I think "truce term" is the most concise, unambiguous title that can be had, and I'd leave it like that for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I've said in the lead its English speaking cultures.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Determiner spreading Hope all is well with you Ling. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you're not watching the AfD you commented on here, I've replied, noting that we shouldn't be using article space to categorise. Ben (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, realized shortly after it wasnt a vandalism and I reverted my warning. I did not think to just add the tag back, but thought the tag would come back with the article for deletion, nether the less your solution seems the way to go thanks for the advice. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the GA review and the article is now listed as a GA. Thanks for being so accommodating to my no doubt irritating whims, but hopefully you agree the article is in better shape now than before. I really love these articles on little topics that would never be given space in a paper encyclopedia, they make wikipedia what it is, so thanks for your efforts with this one and congratulations. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is the first GA I've worked on. I most definitely agree that the article is now in better shape than before. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the experience has encouraged you to take many more articles to GA, and given you an idea of what's required of a GA. Happy editing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple days ago I went to the talk page of this article and objected somewhat vehemently to the proposed merge. Since then I haven't seen any activity, and was kind of hoping I might be able to remove the merge notice from the top of the article (with the rationale that there was not yet consensus to merge). But I wanted to check with you first to see what you think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best approach would be to have an uninvolved admin come along and decide if there is consensus to do anything or not. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I put my two cents in on the article talk page. I'm not seeing a downside to a move/ rename that maintains the content. But I will consider points to the contrary. I think a moved/ merged article will be more accesible to readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry for interrupting, but I do not completely understand the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hauke Harder. I only see one (very short and early) "delete" besides the nominator himself, !voted when the article looked like this. After it got improved by first me a bit and then Pohick a lot there only was one "weak delete", but six "keep" !votes. I know that AfD is not a poll, but could you please share your reasoning for this result? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The "no consensus" closure was based on the strength of the arguments (in terms of Wikipedia policy & guidelines) that each person put forth, not on the number of people saying "keep" or "delete". In any case, "no consensus" defaults to "keep". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also let me add that most of the "keep" arguments were countered with valid concerns. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came here after reading WP:Deletion_review. Since your closing comment did not elaborate, I wanted to ask about your rationale. Since this is not a vote, but a discussion, I wanted to know what you saw as the valid 'keep' arguments that led you to conclude there was 'no consensus'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I guess people were just improving the article instead of answering the very same person over and over. At least that's what Pohick and myself did. "No consensus" makes a new nomination more likely, so I guess that's what will happen very soon. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ps: the recent edit conflict shows, well... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I will take a second look at my closure. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Because AfD is not supposed to be a matter of counting votes, I did not bother to write out "Delete" explicitly. I trusted the closing admin to read my comments and weigh them appropriately, and I am satisfied that LAL has done so.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(<=) I've taken another look at the discussion and I think I will stand by my "no consensus" closure, hopefully that is OK with everyone. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's ok, as in, certainly nothing to get upset about. But could you please still answer my question? What did you see as the valid 'keep' arguments that led you to conclude there was 'no consensus'? Dlabtot (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is my reasoning. When I close an AfD, my role is not to determine the subject's notability or worthiness of having an article, it is to strictly determine what consensus was reached by the editors who participated in the discussion, based on the strength of their arguments as backed up by relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Now, how did I weigh the keep and delete arguments? Well, there were a few people who basically said the references were good enough to establish (borderline) notability, and a few people (notably you and Goodmorningworld here) who said the references were not good enough to establish notability. Now, the references are definitely on the weak side, but they are a start in showing notability, but maybe not enough. On the other hand there was also an argument that since the material was definitely verifiable, then it should not be deleted per WP:PRESERVE, but should be kept and possibly merged if not appropriate for a stand-alone article. I spent quite some time analyzing the rationales given by the different participants, and I actually went back and forth between seeing the consensus as a "keep" and as a "delete" a few times. So instead of relisting it again, I choose to close it as "no consensus", because I truly believe there was no discernible consensus reached by the editors who participated. I am not saying I'm right, nor am I trying to defend a position, nor am I saying the AfD couldn't have been closed differently. I'm only trying to explain my thought process and how I reached the conclusion that I did. If you have any additional questions, be sure to ask. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Clearly, despite all protestations to the contrary, it comes down to a vote. Since you say you aren't weighing the arguments made to determine notability, I'm not sure why I bothered making the arguments in the first place. I will not be wasting further effort participating in AfDs. Dlabtot (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're welcome, and I'm sorry you feel that deletion discussions are a waste of time. I think you are quite a level-headed person who can contribute a lot to the discussions. If this had been a vote, it would clearly have been closed as a "keep", given that the majority of the participants recommended keeping the article. There were valid rationales on both sides of the fence, and neither side had enough strength to completely refute the other side (in my opinion), thus my conclusion of "no consensus". Now, if you think there has been an error in the process or that I have done something wrong, you can follow the instructions on WP:DRV and bring this AfD closure before a wider audience for review. I won't take offense if you choose to do that. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Resonding to what you added, "Since you say you aren't weighing the arguments made to determine notability, I'm not sure why I bothered making the arguments in the first place", I'm not quite sure what you mean, and I don't really see where I would have said that. Notability is an extremely important part of the equation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well gee, I asked twice, what you saw as the valid arguments for keep. You have replied by stating that there were valid arguments for keep, but you've declined to say what they were. Since I actually did spend hours examining all the non-RS and insignificant mentions that were added to the page, I wanted to see if there was any rational, policy based reason for your decision. It doesn't seem there was - it was just a matter of numbers. I don't mean to criticize your work; I'm sure you are doing your best. But the process is fundamentally flawed, and is actually a vote, as your answers make clear. My efforts are better spent elsewhere. I'm not a politician and I'm not good at delivering votes. Dlabtot (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

S Marhsall, Michael Q Schmidt, and Hexachord had cognizant, level-headed arguments. You did a pretty good job of balancing it out with your criticism of their rationale, leading "no consensus" instead of "keep". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear LinguistAtLarge- First, let me thank you again for all your help in making New Waveland Cafe and Clinic into a Good Article. I am just so tickled by that! Second, I am hoping to make Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak into the same. I am profoundly interested in this as it is a medical condition from which I suffer. I have added a lot of refs and content to it, but as always I need someone much more familiar with Good Article reviewing. Is this something you'd be interested in working on with me? Basket of Puppies 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the article. Right off the bat, I'd suggest expanding it as much as possible. The sections are good but they seem to short. One way the article can be expanded is to explain all the terms that someone unfamiliar with the subject won't know. For example: "dura mater", "intracranial hypotension", "Orthostatic headache", "diplopia", "etiology", "foramen magnu", "optic chiasm", "chorda tympani", "glossophrayngeal nerve", "lumbar puncture", "CT myelogram", "fluoroscopy", "chiari malformation", "epidural blood patches". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok! I've gone ahead and explained those terms in the article, added pictures, removed etiology as it seemed to duplicate other things and expanded a few sections. Your thoughts? Basket of Puppies 04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be shaping up- thanks largely to you! Do you think we should formalize the GA review or continue expanding and such and wait on the formal review? Basket of Puppies 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You could go ahead and open the GA review; it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do the review or promote the article, now that I've had a hand in editing it. I'd like to see it be expanded a bit more if possible, maybe put the image inside the infobox, etc. But I don't think it's too far off from GA status. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the article and will go ahead and implement your suggestions, as well. Oh- if you have a moment do you think you'll be able to review me? Thanks! Basket of Puppies 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The site may be reliable, but precedent for major charts is that they still have to be reported in reliable sources. That is not the case for the Mexican and Chilean charts in the afd; nothing whatsoever, not even in Spanish. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week. A big thank you to those who worked on Mary Alice Ford ‎ and the Waterfront Blues Festival, both saw some great improvements. In honor of the great weather, we have our Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive for this week’s collaboration. You can go out and take a picture, or search for a free one on the Internet, or in some cases remove an old request. See the bottom of this page for some links to a variety of free sources. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought, I should notify you I have nominated OpenCart for deletion.--Jamie Shaw (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello to members of the WikiProject o' Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, we added a lot of pictures. For this edition we have by request Mr. Maurice Lucas of the Blazers, and a maintenance type project with the Dab Patrol. For the later, pick any Oregon disambiguation page (mainly common city names) and use the "What links here" feature to find any stray incoming links and direct them to the correct article. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Peace out! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some random candy articles floating about that appear to belong to this brand. I see you deleted the article and I was curious what was there. I'm sure it wasn't much, but I'm still curious. I'm having trouble finding sources, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway. Thank you sir. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello to those who participate in WikiProject Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Dab Patrol and improvements to Maurice Lucas. For this week we have Oregon company FLIR Systems, and a maintenance type project with the FA Update Drive. For the later, pick any Oregon FA class article and read through it to make sure it is still up-to-date. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I like frogs. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See you when you get back. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should be back pretty soon now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This new list article List of languages by time of extinction might interest you. Needs to be sourced better I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This one might interest you also Syllabotactics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings and salutations to members of WikiProject Oregon. We hear bye announce another Collaboration Of The Week. Thanks to anyone who participated in updating any FA articles and for the improvements on FLIR Systems. This week we have two requests: former Blazer Sidney Wicks, and a key historical event with Oregon land fraud scandal. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello to WikiProject Oregon folks, and get ready for another Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on the land fraud scandal and Mr. Wicks. This week we have one by request, Central Oregon, and a gnomish task, the Great Infobox Drive of '09. For the infobox drive, just find some articles without infoboxes and add one. People and companies are two prime areas as many do not have infoboxes, yet infoboxes exist for those areas. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I happened to be looking at an old deletion discussion, saw your name, and thought to myself there is a user I haven't seen around in a while. After coming here I know why. I hope all is well and that you will be back soon. Your excellent contributions are surely missed. Take care, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. Things are looking a bit better now and hopefully I'll be back before long. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your change: 19:00, 14 May 2009 (moved Stack Overflow (website) to Stack Overflow: No need to have the disambiguator "(website)" attached to the end of the title when "Stack Overflow" is available. See WP:TITLE.)

was a bad idea, because the website choose a bad name that clashes with the original meaning. Could you rename it back? or at least name it stackoverflow.com ? Please leave your comment in the talk page of the article in question. Anyway I think it is the best site of question/answer there is, but I they choose a bad name for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgarciamoreno (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply here Talk:Stack Overflow#Wikipedia Article Name. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Howdy after a long message absence to those of WikiProject Oregon. To answer a common question, no you did not get removed from the COTW notification list, I was just too busy to send out the notification for the last change. So, thank you to all those who helped improve Central Oregon and Mount Jefferson, as well as those who added infoboxes and adopted a governor. For this edition of the COTW, we have partly by request and in honor of the return of college football, Duck football and Beaver football. If you are a fan of neither, maybe go back and work on a governor or add infoboxes this time around. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion and I thought you migth be interested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I need a template for converting $/square foot to $/square meter. Can {{convert}} be adapted for such a purpose? I need such a template at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and I doubt this is the only place it could be useful on wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon. First, thank you to all those who helped improve the Ducks and Beavers football teams. Second, now on with the countdown. For this edition of the COTW, we have by request Portland Hempstalk Festival and Munson Valley Historic District. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U. There appears to be a need for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Help with "The U" if you have a mind for it. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, it is time for another Collaboration of the Week. First, thanks to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Portland Hempstalk Festival and the Munson Valley Historic District articles. This week we have by request Rasheed Wallace and the Oregon Zoo. The later should have lots of recent news with the new/old exhibit opening. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, time to uncork a fine wine as it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Oregon Zoo, the Rasheed Wallace, Willamette Bridges, and the Vanport articles. This week we have by request Jim Paxson and Films shot in Oregon. The later can easily be improved just by adding some sources. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And with Halloween fast approaching, remember that pennies really suck as a “treat” and you can expect toilet paper and or eggs on your residence for your “trick”. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a reason in your edit summary. I concede the point. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin. I was under the impression that direct quotes should not be modified, but then again, I could be wrong. So if you truly thing it should be changed, I won't oppose you. But IMO, the quote shouldn't be modified. Anyway, I take it you're interested in programming? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I concede again. Per WP:MOS a direct quote may not be changed except in cases where clarity is increased for the reader. In this case, there is no such justification.

My thing was about style and placing terminating punctuation inside a wikilink. Generally, I feel this should never be done. Having researched the case in question, I think this is an exception, despite its injury to my eyes causing several weeks of hospitalization to the victim so afflicted by the exception to the style issue.

My reasoning goes like this:

1. Original edit contains final punctuation (a period) inside a wikilink. Gort says, "Must be killed". Along come the Daleks exclaiming, "Exterminate!".
2. Check wikilink. Oh crap, there's already a period there in the reference to be linked. If the first period goes inside, so does the second, for reasons of parallelism.
3. To fix, editor seizes upon a reference, the Salon article cited in the RERO article at cite 1 (para 12 "Release early, release often, is the mantra..."). "Oh, good," says the editor, I can use a comma, kill the first period, and justify taking the second period out of the wikilink.
4. "Direct quote" issue comes up. Read essay section not read in 11 years and properly referenced in RERO at cite 3. Yes, there it is, the direct quote in the essay. The CatB article is not, in any way, paraphrasing; its quoting.
5. Notice that the essay section also uses a comma in its title. At this point editor in question has a brain melt and said brain slimely slithers down the gutter to be washed into the sea with the rainwater.

Meaning beats style. Hands down. Direct quotes like the one found in the body of the essay section mustn't be tampered with for "light and transient causes". The concept of parallelism demands both periods inside the wikilink. For posterity, I note that this is yet another case of a primary source (the original essay) beating a secondary source (Salon) on Wikipedia. Sometimes primary sources just plain win. (Note, for mixing first and third person in this post, I hereby WP:TROUT myself.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jonathan Park. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Park (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon member, once again time for the Collaboration of the Week in the land of Oregon. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving List of films shot in Oregon and Jim Paxson. This week we have by request Oregon tax revolt and not by request, the annual Hospital creation drive. For the later, I have laid out some sources here, and the remaining red links are all over the state, so you can find one near you! As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. May the wind always be beneath your wings. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again for another installment of as the Collaboration Of The Week Turns. A big thank you to last time’s guest stars who worked on Oregon tax revolt‎ and creating hospital articles, we had 3 DYKs off the hospital articles createdd. This week is the star-studded affair of the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, starring LinguistAtLarge. You can go out and take a picture, browse through Commons for an existing one, or search for a free one on the Internet, and in some cases remove an old request (or even add a request to an article that has no images). See the bottom of this page for some links to a variety of free sources. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Twitpic Screenshot January 2009.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Twitpic Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Jonathan Park - The Hunt for Beowulf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, and seasons greetings. Here at Collaboration Of The Week we thank you for your efforts making Oregon better, at least on Wikipedia, and hope you are doing better than Joe's. Or, in the eloquent words of some marketing manager for another now defunct Oregon chain, Merry Christmas from PayLess... Merry Chriiiistmaaaasssss!!!

Now that pleasantries have been exchanged, thank you to those who worked on the last two collaborations, the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, and Oregon Country Fair and Geoff Petrie. For this edition of the COTW we have Gambling in Oregon and NRHP in Washington County. The hope for the later is to fill in the last few images (5) and then see if we can make it the first NRHP list in Oregon with an article for every entry (need 27). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, you WikiProject Oregon member! Tis the season for one last Collaboration Of The Week to get started this year. Thank you to those who worked on Gambling in Oregon and NRHP in Washington County the last few weeks. For the final COTW of 2009, we have Archiving Article Talk Pages and Mr. Standard TV & Appliance, Bill Schonely. For the archiving, we have a lot of old, stale comments on article talk pages from before 2009 that should be archived away, so that new comments are not added to things that either were addressed or not worth addressing. Personally, I archive anything older than a year. Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Oregon team member. Time for the first new Collaboration Of The Week in 2010. Thank you to those who worked on Bill Schonely and archiving talk pages. For this week, we have Concordia University and the Berry Botanic Garden. Hopefully we can mine the garden’s website before it closes down. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Cheers and stuff. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy WikiProject Oregon folks, time again for the latest installment of As the Collaboration Of The Week Turns. Last week was one of the more successful COTWs in recent memory as we really worked hard as a community to improve Concordia University and Berry Botanic Garden. Both are now at least C class articles and nicely illustrated (thanks to Tedder, Finetooth, and Ipoellet). Plus it really was a group effort as we had five different WPORE editors work on the garden and ditto with the school, with some overlap between the two.

Anyway, this week, we have by request the completely unrelated Just Out and Terrell Brandon. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message paid for by Fooians against COTW killing taxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw an article about the last speaker of the Bo language that was spoken by a tribe in the Andaman Islands passing on and thought of you. I hope all is well with you in 2010. Party on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week (yes, I know they are not actually every week anymore). Thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving Terrell Brandon, Just Out, 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly, and all the unreferenced BLPs. This week we have by request Oregon Coast Aquarium and Arvydas Sabonis (maybe the Blazers can sign him as I think he's healthy). Both need more sourcing. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And remember folks, the only thing we have to fear is death and taxes, unless of course the dingo ate your baby, at which point you may feel the need, the for speed to get away from said dingos, which in turn can lead to a failure to communicate due to the dynamics of sound waves, though at some point hopefully we can all just get along. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, time for a new edition of the Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving Oregon Coast Aquarium and Arvydas Sabonis. Also thank you to those few of you helped with the attempt to celebrate Women's History Month with Barbara Roberts and Ursula K. Le Guin.

This week we have by request the Memorial Coliseum that has been in the news a lot lately, and then one of the more important political figures in our state's history, Douglas McKay. The MC needs some ref work and EL work, and McKay really needs a lot more sourcing. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Oregon member, time for the next edition of the Collaboration of the Week. Thanks to those who assisted in improving a few articles over the last month. For May Day edition of the COTW (in Wikipedia time its May already), we have by request Rim Village Historic District and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (AKA OMSI). Rim Village just needs some refinement to get to GA, while OMSI needs a lot of work in general. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios (on May 5th that is). Aboutmovies (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello LinguistAtLarge, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on February 13 2009, SOASTA, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:SamJohnston (page has mainspace links, and 20 edits). This has been done because the page is an almost identical copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:SamJohnston. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of SamJohnston (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this note because of your participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). –xeno^talk 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GetEducated.com

"between a strong undecided and a very weak keep"

That's about where I am too. Flagged for rescue and more input, because I think perhaps someone could salvage it.

Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts, which were very helpful.  Chzz  ►  15:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: There is a counter-proposal to the thread you started on Talk:Bandwagon effect a long time ago, if it still matters to you. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)