User talk:Cnilep/Archive/17 September 2013

"Free World" edit

Hello. (sorry for the bad english) My edit to Free World was, in fact, attempting to take the article to a neutral point of view, because it implied that a free world can only be capitalist and didn't specify that the term was mostly used by capitalist states in an effort to publicly criticize the communist states as being against freedom or things like that.

I made the edit because I had the feeling whoever wrote that part of the article seemed to support that view;

I'm actually trying to take Wikipedia away from criticizing different points of view from those of most americans, especially because most editors are american, and there is a lot of bias on sensitive articles like this one. For example, there is an article on "Communist propaganda", but not "Capitalist propaganda". Forgive me if my edit was biased, I assure you it was not my intention. I merely wanted to highlight that the term is not factual; It is mostly used as a form of propaganda.

PS: No, I'm not communist (no problem with someone being communist though). I just want a REALLY neutral point of view here. 187.65.148.179 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that you are editing in good faith. And you are correct that the term is (or was) used by liberal, mainly capitalist regimes, especially the United States, to promote their ideology while vilifying communism. I thought that words like "hypocritically" and "ironic" went too far from description of that discourse to a characterization of it or the people who produced it, though. There is also a question of whether the term constitutes propaganda as such: it was used by political actors, such as US or UK governments, to influence political ideas. But it was also picked up by allegedly neutral (though biased) users such as American or western European media. In such controversial cases, it is best to cite published, reviewed sources for their evaluations rather than to base such evaluation on our own "common sense".

Thanks again for your contributions, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Linguistics in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Linguistics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cnilep's objection to Malpropism edit

Dear Cnilep, you are incorrect that I "added new content without citing sources." First, I did cite the source: my source is the information someone provided in a previous section of the same article, subtitled "distinguishing features." I explicitly refer to this source in the text. If I didn't link to it correctly, please fix the link. Second, I was not "adding new content." I was correcting an inaccurate observation that someone else had provided, which they had not cited a source in support of! It was inaccurate based on information given elsewhere in the same article, not based on my opinion. The previous person had written that Bunker's remark was an example of a malapropism. They did not cite a source for this observation. Their opinion directly contradicted the information in the section right above it, on 'the "distinguishing features" of a malapropism. I was merely correcting the inaccurate information. I pointed out that, based on the definition of malapropism in the previous section, this remark wasn't a malapropism. My correction is self-evident as a matter of logic and is therefore merely an explication of sourced information, not an assertion of new information. Please review the entry more carefully. If my entry is somehow invalid based on Wikipedia rules, then the previous person's entry on Bunker's remark should also be removed. You should not simply revert to what they said, because it is both unsourced and shown to be inaccurate by sourced information given elsewhere in the article. Caroline1981 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right that a previous editor or editors supplied unreferenced information that might need to be removed if it cannot be properly sourced. I did remove it with this edit. Wikis, including Wikipedia itself, are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia content, so while making an article internally consistent is desirable, it is not sufficient to ensure verifiability. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-evident logical inferences from sourced material should not need separate sourcing. Not even scientific papers require that. Considering how much garbage gets left sitting around on Wikipedia, and considering that what I wrote was self evidently accurate, adequately supported by sourced material elsewhere in the article, interesting, and educational, you are doing nothing that is in the least socially useful with your time and authority by removing helpful, informative logical inferences from sourced information rather than focusing on removing actual garbage. I am not impressed.Caroline1981 (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Programming language / language

Hello Cnilep, thanks for helping with delsorting but regarding Boa language programming languages go under Computing rather then Language see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#programming language as language?, made the same mistake myself in the past. So I've struck the Language delsort & removed it from here. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thank you for the heads-up. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Usage note on school colors in Template:Infobox school

I just saw that your comment on school colors for this infobox was archived without any comments or actions. I personally agree with you, so I changed the documentation. See the edit history for Template:Infobox school/doc to see what I did. I hope this helps. You can always feel free to add, change or expand! Thanks. --Arg342 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. Let's hope it helps. Cnilep (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5th Dalai Lama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Cnilep/Archive - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Northeastern American English"

Hi, I deleted the link to "Northeastern American English" because I thought it was a link that was redirecting the reader to an irrelevant page, but when I looked into it, you're right; the link should have stayed. The page on Northeastern American English is appropriate and complete for anyone looking for the relevant information. I did, however, delete New Jersey from the Other Mid-Atlantic States section, because it is covered in the Tri-State section that includes New York and Connecticut, and the dialect described in the Other Mid-Atlantic States section is not New Jersey English, and represents the other states listed with the exception on New Jersey. I know this being born and raised in New Jersey. It is correct to let NJ remain with the NY and CT versions of American English and does not need, nor is it correct for it, to be in the Other Mid-Atlantic States section. Thanks for your time and help. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.26.195 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. Cnilep (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

References and notability

Can you inform me as to what kind of sources are needed? I am unsure as to what the differences are between the Angos page and some other constructed language pages (for example: Ro, Sona, or Spokil). I find it ironic that the Angos is getting more attention regarding notability than these. :P Razlem (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now it appears that most of the sources (I think all but one) are written by Benjamin Wood, who is the language's creator. Wikipedia:Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Independent sources do not include the language's creator or people who are involved in promoting or developing it. These sources don't have to provide all the information (for example, the lexicon and grammar will probably be sourced to non-independent sources), but they need to provide "more than trivial mention". I'd look for descriptions in newsletters, news outlets, books, or catalogs of various constructed languages. WP:WikiProject Constructed languages may have more specific advice about notability. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A reference

Hi Cnilep, I am looking for an good integrated description of the differences between first and second language acquisition and am drawing blanks - every introductory text I can find seems to be about one or the other, without ever relating them or contrasting them. Do you have a suggestion? Either whole books or articles is fine. Best, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing leaps to mind. The first thing I thought of was Susan Ervin-Tripp's "Acquisition" definition from the Key Terms in Linguistic Anthropology issue of Journal of Linguistic Anthropology (2000), but that turns out to have only two sentences about L2 acquisition.

Both cognitive and social development in children affect the order of acquisition. The increase in capacity, as well as transfer from first language, explains why second languages are acquired so fast in late childhood. On the other hand, after puberty, a first language has never been learned successfully, and attaining the skill of a native speaker of a second language is variable.

I'll think about it and look around if I have time. Sorry I can't be of more help. Cnilep (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Cnilep; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lib Dem colours

Hello. Thanks for informing me of this. The reason I originally edited that was to capitalize "Yellow" and "Orange" in order to make that more formal and in line with the rest of the infobox. I will do so again without adding a wikilink. If you disagree feel free to undo but send me a message if you do.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I frequently disambiguate pages linking to Orange, and when I find infoboxes linking to colors, I remove all such links. Happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Backronym, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Allochtoon

Hello. I noticed you started a discussion about merging Allochtoon into Demographics of the Netherlands and the merge proposal tag is still at the Allochtoon page. I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but I think it might be an idea to come to a conclusion, so the merger tag won't stay forever. If you still think the merge is a good idea, maybe it would be an idea to start a merge discussion at the Demographics page, and then close the discussion after a week (or longer, if no consensus)? Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pity that there was no discussion. I have closed the discussion as no consensus and removed the template. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edson Rosa

Hi, Cnilep. It seems that after editing as dynamic IP, the user:Edson Rosa is back as Mila Stam (talk · contribs · count). It may be coincident, of course, but the edit pattern is same (overlinkage of US$, adding articles in category:Companies of Brazil while the article has already more specific categories, minimal response to other editors etc), the scope of articles is the same and it is not usual that the first edit would be creation of a company article with a infobox. Beagel (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel Arts and Science Academy

Hi Cniclep.
Thank you very much for your greetings and explanations. I dont know how to cite reliable sources in this article, since I am a student there whose very involved in the programs of the Humanities Department. I wrote the whole section very objectively in the Hebrew Wikipedia and then translated it to English. How can I cite sources if I know all I wrote from Firsthand? please help me with improving the reliability of this section. Thanks a lot for your help!
p.s.
Is my encyclopedic writing up to standard? Is the English good enough? דער קונצנמאכער (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

First-hand knowledge is not considered sufficient for Wikipedia content because it cannot be verified. Although I do not doubt that you are conscientious in adding information that you trust, Wikipedia articles need to cite published sources that confirm the accuracy and completeness of the information. The pages I've linked to here, and others linked from your user talk page explain this in more detail.

It appears that the Hebrew page at he:התיכון הישראלי למדעים ולאמנויות (ירושלים) links to a couple of news sources; this is a good start. The article needs to cite information from published sources, at least some of which are independent of the Academy. Several templates are available to help with the nuts and bolts of footnotes and the like. See Template:Citation and associated pages.

Oh, and the English seems fine; I didn't notice any problems. Thanks for your additions to Hebrew-language and English-language Wikipedia. Good luck, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Chad. :) I just noticed your post about 3RR on WT:LING, and after I checked the article I saw that you had only reverted twice. Of course, you were right to ask for help from uninvolved editors rather than carry on reverting, but I just thought I'd let you know that technically you still had one more revert. You need to revert four times to actually break the rule. (On the other hand, 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts.) Thanks, and I hope you're doing well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your linguistics articles, I award you this Tireless Contributor barnstar :). Thanks for making new page patrol enjoyable! I've also given you the autopatrolled userright. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Development anthropology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Basic Terms of Usage on Linguistic Systems Article

Thanks for your feedback on my first page. I am really flying blind on updating this article for Linguistic Systems. Can you possibly walk me through what I would need to change specifically to fall within the approved guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emaginereports (talk • contribs) 13:24, 22 May 2013‎

I can give you some basic advice. First, don't panic. There is always more to learn, and there are many contributors to Wikipedia, which is always a work in progress. The blue links in the welcome message on your talk page link to helpful advice, but of course the sheer volume of that advice can be overwhelming.

One of the first things that strikes the eye concerning Linguistic Systems is the "External links" section. As currently written, it actually mixes internal links (links to other Wikipedia pages) and external links (links to web pages outside Wikipedia). The internal links should be in a section headed "See also", which should come before the external links section. See MOS:APPENDIX if you'd like more detail on appendix sections. You also want to make sure that the links serve to inform encyclopedia readers, not simply to advertise the company. See Wikipedia:External links for advice on what to include and what not to include.

Second, it is important that all factual information be cited to reliable sources. This helps establish the company's notability and allows readers and other editors to verify the content of the article. As much as possible, those sources should be independent of the company. For example, cite news reports or scholarly papers, not the company's own web pages or disclosures. See Wikipedia:No original research, one of Wikipedia's core policies, for more information.

That might be a lot of work to get started on. Once that is in place, the prose in the article may need to be rewritten so that its style is neutral and not overly promotional. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for some advice on writing style.

I hope this helps. Good luck, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cognitive science

Dear Chad, maybe you have already noticed the new WikiProject Cognitive science – it's rather new and still small, but it would be nice to see you around! Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Death Comes To Pemberley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | producer = [[David Thompson]]]{{dn|date=June 2013}}<ref name="IMDB">{{cite web|url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2951788/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Metre?

Where can i put these? More pages, than one?

Note: in some countries the meter means measuring instrument; metre means the unit of length. ZJ (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling advice is generally included in dictionaries rather than encyclopedias. Perhaps you should see wikt:meter and wikt:metre. Cnilep (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

About Joseph Heller

What are you talking about? There have been no edits made by me on that page, June 2013 or ever. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; the page I meant to link to was Joseph Heller (zoologist). Your edit is here. I was too quick to hit the save button, it seems. Again, I apologize. Cnilep (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I remember now. I tagged it with cleanup because at that time, it was poorly written. It seems to have been fixed now, looks better! Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fanwank

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Fanwank, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. scope_creep 15:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Speedy deletion was declined. Do not hesitate to consult Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if you have any questions regarding why this was so. Cnilep (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not feed the animals

Thank you for adding the material on marine wildlife to this article. It's an important case that hadn't been covered (and hence deserves its own section). I have, however, taken the liberty of rewording the lede to include the current article title, pending a resolution of the title change debate. -- 202.124.73.19 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Consiliul

Hello! If you want me to write anything to him in Romanian, please don't hesitate. --Vlad|-> 03:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi! Does it look like that i am biased by seeing my writing. If yes, then pl. explain why you feel so. (based on your comments on my talk page). Thank you. --User talk:Kansal15 —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not notice any particular biases. I did notice that a contributor to the National Knowledge Network blog is called 'kansal', and conjectured that you might be the same person. Cnilep (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mar'ashi Najafi library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zareh, Iran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Lyoness

Dear Cnilep,

Thanks for your concern. However, I feel wrongly accused, since I'm most certainly not tied to Lyoness or any of the other people or organisations mentioned in the article. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest here. Additionally, if you'd read the article and looked at the references, I'll think you'll find the structure of this article as balanced, neutral and well-sourced as can be. Therefore, I'm slightly disappointed you would think I'm working an angle here.

Possibly, you got confused by my dispute with LyoNewMedia over a source (which in the end was removed, as LyoNewMedia was right, according to the Wikipedia guidelines). However, this was more a case of pride (which I should work on) than that it was a result of any sort of bias, which I haven't got. Additionally, I'd then find it weird that you'd send me a 'warning' and not LyoNewMedia, as it seems very plausible that this user is tied to the main subject of the article, Lyoness.

Hope to hear from you.

Lyoness expert (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lyoness expert. There is certainly no accusation of bias, "working an angle", or even of conflict of interest. I simply noticed that your name is very similar to the name of an article you have been editing. If you are associated with the shopping community, I trust that you will take care to continue editing in a responsible manner. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as extensively discussed, I'm not. Thanks again for your concern and your reply! Lyoness expert (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Junior College stubs

I see we have both encouraged user:Takaisi to stop and think before creating yet more sub-college stubs. This editor appears not to engage in conversation, and I suspect unfamiliarity with English. Assuming them to be Japanese, I am sure that approaching them with due regard to Japanese culture will bear fruit. It would be ideal if we had a Japanese speaker to engage them in conversation, but I suspect these are few and far between Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Having just read your user page, that Japanese speaker might well be you, should you opt to take this task on. Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I did leave this message on 7 August, but it received no response. Perhaps I should try again. Cnilep (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

All one can do is to make the attempt. Those who will not listen will not listen. We can only try. Fiddle Faddle 07:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

After waiting for a short interval they have restarted, and gone off like a rocket. All I can think of is to enter the formal warning process at the elevated level the prior shots across their bows have justified, so I have done so. I am now going back through their created pages and flagging for merges. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Further study shows that a minority of their junior colleges do not seem to have a senior college. These strike me as the 'good' articles, the ones that can and perhaps should be freestanding. Those with a senior institution are, however, not appropriate in my view. Others may disagree. Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my Talkpage

Dear Cnilep,

Thank you for your message. I am very sorry and also a bit devastated if I left a wrong impression. It was always my intention and goal to keep the Lyoness article in a neutral tone, as you can also see on the discussion pages. The last dispute (that we luckily solved) was about an article that didn’t fulfill the Wikipedia Guidelines. Therefore I suggested that it should be removed. With the help of Technopat, we found a very good solution for the problem. However, I would like to avoid another “editing war” and therefore I contacted Lyoness expert to find a good solution for sections in question that fit both sides. I think this is a good way how to guarantee a neutral article.

I can assure you that I am well aware of the Wikipedia Guidelines and I always want to respect them.

Thank you for your time and best wishes, --LyoNewMedia (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Cnilep. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ainu on Wiktionary

Hi Cnilep. I see that you did a few Ainu words earlier this year on Wiktionary. I'm working on an Ainu project and was wondering if you are interested in helping out. One of the first tasks is to establish the parts of speech and the writing system. If you're interested, please drop me a line at wikt:User_talk:BenjaminBarrett12.--BB12 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Metonyms

Ah, thanks--probably an indication that I need to adjust my modus operandi.

That stuff was terribly incomplete and ideally destined for userspace. Of course, if some time passes before I am able to resume work--and chief among the injuries I have inflicted on an article is brainfart mislocation error--then I'm not at all likely to pick up where I left off.

As the say on the street, Good looking out.

Patronanejo (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

You contacted me on my talk page about the problems caused by me changing a redirect from the Bullfrog page. You made a cogent argument with which I agree. In the Sea FAC it has been suggested that the article should be renamed to "The sea", "World ocean" or somesuch. If this was done, hundreds of incoming links to the article would become redirects. It seems to me that this is an excellent argument for keeping the article's name as it is, which is just what I and my co-nominator want. And who better to make the point than you? ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the Sea FAC page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)