User talk:Linguist91

Linguistics is the scientific study of what makes us human; Language. Its study is not limited to communication and what is known as "e-language". It is, according to Chomsky(1957)(1963)(1976)(1993)(1994)(2002)(2013)(2014)(2016) and many other scholars in a number of subfields and branches of linguistics such as theoretical, cognitive, psycho, neuro, bio,etc. the science of linguistics focuses hugely on the role of language in cognition, thought, perception and consciousness. Language is human-specific, no other organim is equipped with it, it is arguably what makes us human. It is primarily used as an internal system responsible for generating an infinity of recursive thought at the conceptual-intentional interface. And later interpreted to sensory-modality and could be externalized. Thinking as sophisticated as we have evolved to possess, would be most ideally like what monkeys do if we weren't equipped with Langugae. Also there is all sorts of connection between thought(at least language-ralated) and what we perceive (relativity) and there is a huge number of work on what is called Language and Consciousness. Too many details I wont go into, yet they can be easily found anywhere you look. Therefore I believe the revision for Linguistics is absolutely necessary since it is one of the most important branches of cognitive science and the very thing which ultimately makes us human.

For further reading: Noam Chomsky; Why Only us; 2016 Noam Chomsky; What kind of creatures are we? 2016 Noam Chomsky; The Minimalist Program Noam Chomsky; Aspects of the Theory of Syntax George Miller; Language and Perception Ray Jackendoff; Semantics and Cognition Massimo P.Palmarini; The Biolinguistic approach Massumo P. Palmarini; Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a Natural Science Cedric Boeckx; Syntactic Islands Cedric Boeckx; Language and Cognition Massimo P. Palmarini; Linguistics and some of its underlying dynamics Steven Pinker; The Langugae instinct

And the list goen on

Proposed deletion of Quantum Linguistics

Hello, Linguist91. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Quantum Linguistics, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive science

Please cite a reliable, verifiable source for your latest addition; otherwise it could be subject to removal as speculation "arguably..." Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Science

Hi Linguist91, thanks for the clarification. I had not been aware of that train of thought. To avoid confusion, perhaps leave a note on the Vision Science talk page because the theory of Linguistic Relativity and visual perception is not well known. Strasburger (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Linguist91, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the pages Vision science, Cognitive science and Time perception have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been undone. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Famous _dog (c) 11:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

User talk:Linguist91 2,004 BYTES ADDED, 2 MINUTES AGO Linguistics Linguistics is the scientific study of what makes us human; Language. Its study is not limited to communication and what is known as "e-language". It is, according to Chomsky(1957)(1963)(1976)(1993)(1994)(2002)(2013)(2014)(2016) and many other scholars in a number of subfields and branches of linguistics such as theoretical, cognitive, psycho, neuro, bio,etc. the science of linguistics focuses hugely on the role of language in cognition, thought, perception and consciousness. Language is human-specific, no other organim is equipped with it, it is arguably what makes us human. It is primarily used as an internal system responsible for generating an infinity of recursive thought at the conceptual-intentional interface. And later interpreted to sensory-modality and could be externalized. Thinking as sophisticated as we have evolved to possess, would be most ideally like what monkeys do if we weren't equipped with Langugae. Also there is all sorts of connection between thought(at least language-ralated) and what we perceive (relativity) and there is a huge number of work on what is called Language and Consciousness. Too many details I wont go into, yet they can be easily found anywhere you look. Therefore I believe the revision for Linguistics is absolutely necessary since it is one of the most important branches of cognitive science and the very thing which ultimately makes us human.

For further reading: Noam Chomsky; Why Only us; 2016 Noam Chomsky; What kind of creatures are we? 2016 Noam Chomsky; The Minimalist Program Noam Chomsky; Aspects of the Theory of Syntax George Miller; Language and Perception Ray Jackendoff; Semantics and Cognition Massimo P.Palmarini; The Biolinguistic approach Massumo P. Palmarini; Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a Natural Science Cedric Boeckx; Syntactic Islands Cedric Boeckx; Language and Cognition Massimo P. Palmarini; Linguistics and some of its underlying dynamics Steven Pinker; The Langugae instinct

And the list goen on

 Linguist91 (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

Please stop editing the main linguistics article without discussing changes on the article's talk page. You cannot create your own talk page to discuss any changes. Other members editing the article must agree with your changes. Since you are getting reverted so many times, there are high chances that you can get banned for edit warring if an admin is alerted about your behaviour. Your edits do not make any sense whatsoever, as you are adding material to the article that is factually wrong and grammatically incorrect as well. MrsCaptcha (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== factually wrong?? I hold a Phd in the field, so I guess I am aware of what I am saying. tell me what parts are factually wrong"؟؟؟ seems like you are one of those people who is only here to attack the real information! do you even know what linguists do? by the way, I have put my justification here as well. it is such a disappointment that there is no real scientist active here on Wiki to prevent problems like this occur. please try to understand my concern

Yes, much of what you have entered in the article is your personal opinion, unverified, and controversial. That is the reason why it is not factually correct. Since Wikipedia is not based on users' real world identities or their personal opinions, I would request you to refrain from using your qualifications here (PhD or other) to justify anything you add to the article. What you do in the world outside the internet by way of degrees or work has nothing to do with the way this encyclopedia is democratically and academically edited. The only thing that can justify a statement in an article is verified sources and overall consensus between the community. Moreover, all theoretical positions have to be represented in the article, not just what your personal "concern" is which we must "try to understand". If you read the entire linguistics article with an open mind, you will find that the Chomskyan approach that you are pushing is not the only approach/theory/tradition in the discipline and that it has in fact been included sufficiently in the appropriate place. You seem to be new to Wikipedia, which is why I am explaining this to you. If at all you wish to add more details about Chomskyan cognitive theories, please submit those on the linguistics talkpage and someone who knows the way that tagging/referencing works, can help integrate them into the main article. But simply adding personal viewpoints in an un-cohesive and unverified manner is not acceptable, scientist or no scientist. MrsCaptcha (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if I provide you with acadamically valid information and also the references for that, you will help me integrate them into the main article? Linguist91 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Linguist91. That is what I - and many of us - are all here for. We are passionate about the articles we are editing and are here to work with others on those to improve them continuously. MrsCaptcha (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. So i will send you the information soon. Linguist91 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky

Hi @Linguist91:

I reverted your recent changes to Noam Chomsky; they made the opening sentences a bit too wordy, and we want to try and keep things concise. Although he does do a lot of work in mathematical linguistics, it's a bit of a stretch to call him a pure "mathematician", and we have no reliable sources describing him as such. Chomsky himself says that he doesn't understand "the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example." While he has been referred to as a "logician" on occasion, formal logic is technically a subset of formal philosophy, and hence is encompassed by "philosopher" (just as "philosophy of science" is encompassed by "analytic philosophy"). Vrrajkum (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Dear @Vrrajkum, philosophy of science is not a subset of Analytic Philosophy. And also, being a logician does not mean that you are a philosopher and vice versa. I myself believe in the fact that we must keep things simple here, but a lot of people only visit Wiki to read the first paragraph. So we must make sure the right information is delivered. I have made the same argument in "linguistics" section where I have, much to my dismay, detected the first paragraph very poorly written. You can have a look at that and see if you agree with me. Linguist91 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alien language

Hi Hi @Linguist91:. I've just seen that someone removed most of our discussion of formal linguistics with the commentary "removing this theoretical back and forth which is really not relevant for the topic of alien language". I think he/she is wrong, but maybe someone from outside linguistics needs some more explanations to see why this is relevant. What do you think? Personally, I would like to reintegrate the lost passages, maybe with some more explanations? Linguist2017 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I guess he won't be convinced of the usefulness of the content unless he is provided with a well-defined justification as to what (from a linguist's prespective) seems to be of necessity. Linguist91 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll give it another try when I find some time. Linguist2017 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Linguist91, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Biolinguistics have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Time Perception

I disagree with your edits to this page. Please join me on Talk:Time_perception to discuss them. Famous _dog (c) 10:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cognitive linguistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mental. 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) 10:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Nanosyntax

Content you added to the above article back in 2017 appears to have been copied from http://nanosyntax.auf.net/whatis.html. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]