User talk:LjL/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Archive 5

On Manuel Zelaya dispute

I have brought up concerns over the other parties comments with them, but I would also ask you to make sure that you both adhere to WP:CIVIL, characterizing another editors actions as rude in an edit summary[1] is likely to be inflammatory and is close to a personal attack. You must make all pains to stick to discussion of policy and the facts and be wary of commenting on the behavior and actions of the other editor. If you are finding that you cannot work with the other editor then another forum should be used to resolve the dispute, you should not use the article talkpage to prolong your dispute. I suggest starting a dialog with the editor on their own talk page to clarify your intentions and clear the air, sticking clear of the facts of the current dispute, doing so will lead to your both being able to work together better. Mfield (Oi!) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, though I believe I will simply refrain from touching that article or its talk page. I'd like to point out that I started commenting about rudeness in the edit summary only after the situation had already excalated a lot. LjL (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are frustrated but I think that you have both been arguing with some misconceptions about each others intentions. There have certainly been some misunderstandings of policy that are now clearer. I have faith that with a clearing of the air you could happily work through this and it will give you better hope next time you run into a similar situation. I think you will find the other party is in a very similar position. Mfield (Oi!) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe the other party is acting in slightly worse faith than me; but anyway, I simply suspect (and hope) there will just be no further problems, since I saw your exchange on the article's talk page and I see they agree with you on a wording that I have no problems at all with (as I thought I had explained before, but maybe I hadn't been clear). LjL (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

LjL, help me understand why you undid my changes, your comment "CITING Constitution articles doesn't somehow SHOW they're being violated." seem to me to show you didn't read my additions very thoroughly. The text as it now stands has several "citation needed" statements. I provided the citations. I added a paragraph to show why it was not a constitutional violation to arrest someone before 6 am in case of an emergency, and that only the electoral tribunal has the authority to hold a plebiscite, which must be also approved by congress. I feel these additions explain the situation much more accurately and completely than the existing text. I couldn't simply say so, however, I had to provide citations for each of these statements, and I did. Aeortiz (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's that I'm very tired of seeing statements like "Foo acted illegally", a source requested, and a "source" provided in terms of "Foo acted illegally according to Constitution article 12345 (link to article 12345)". That hardly even qualifies as a primary source, and Wikipedia much prefers secondary sources anyway. To back up a statement that someone acted illegally (which, incidentally, is a disparging statement that should be treated with much care according to WP:BLP), you need a reliable secondary source making the reasoning. You can't just make the leap yourself that since Constitution art. 12345 says X, and Foo did Y, then Foo acted illegally.

Let's look at what you did in detail:

"President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a non-binding referendum, but only the National Electoral Tribunal has the authority to do this, according to article 5 of the Constitution." (link to art. 5) "Also, a plebiscite must be approved by Congress."

Who here is asserting that what Zelaya tried to do was really what is described by article 5? If that's your own original research, it doesn't apply. You need a source.

"Therefore, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Congress and the Supreme Court [...]"

The El Heraldo citation given never mentions the word "congreso".

"[the ballots] which had been confiscated and were being guarded at the Air Force base"

I honestly don't see anything saying that in the CNN article. It says the article were at a military base, but not that they were confiscated, which seems to be the primary claim.

"Zelaya's removal took place about an hour before polls were to open and violated article 102 of the Honduran Constitution, which prohibits the extradition of Honduran citizens" (link to article 102)

Usual issue. Article 102 is an excellent source for itself, but not a source for the fact that the removal was illegal.

The military arrested him at 5:30 am; arrests can normally be held only between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm, except in cases of emergency, according to article 99 of the Honduran Constitution. (link to article 99)

First, the source doesn't say the arrest took place at 5:30am (although I suppose a source for that could be found easily). But who's to say that "allanacion" is an arrest, for example? And the way I read the article, it says that only in cases of emergency ("en caso de urgencia") someone can be "allanado", and even then only between 6am and 6pm. See? You can't just take an article of the Constitution and apply it to a given situation on Wikipedia. That's the job of lawyers, not Wikipedians.

And also a more general remark... do we really need all this detail in the article? There is already an article about the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, which is linked as a main article on Honduras. In the article about Honduras, I really don't think we should explain in detail what happened, at which times of the day, etc etc. It doesn't belong to the article. Some of your sources will probably be useful on the article about the crisis. --LjL (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you LjL, I understand now. But in upholding our zeal for not including original research we are at the mercy of the reams of misinformation published by very reputable sources like the BBC, CNN, The London Times, which are based on, let me say this carefully, misreporting (severe bias and outright lies), from Venezuelan news sources. I will look for sources that explain this clearly, but given the current political climate, almost only editorials dare to publish anything that could conflict with the official position of the OAS. So truth must be sacrificed to avoid original research? Can't clear language and logic speak for themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeortiz (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration with news source, but if Wikipedia started doing original research, especially on political topics, we'd be doomed. There has already been hugely heated debated about Honduran matters even while most of the editors agreed to only use reliable sources... imagine what would happen if people didn't. Synthezising conclusions from sources is also a very dangerous path to take.

I believe reliable sources can be found that don't misreport... and if not now, in a while. There is no hurry on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow - maybe there is for some who want to push their political point of view as quickly as possible, but that's not Wikipedia's issue). Good sources may be a little harder to find that mainstream news articles, but I'm sure you couldn't have been the only one using logic. --LjL (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal action

Hey LGL looks like the psychological community is attempting to take legal action against me. Kind of funny.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely unexpected, given what were "absolutely not" legal threats :-( --LjL (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

High capacity data cassettes

You added a request for a cite at Compact Cassette saying I have trouble believing this, I've looked for such cassette-recording software for a long time and never found any. The section is not really talking about software, but high capactiy (60 MB) data cassettes in the compact cassette size and format. I have used these, which are discussed on the talk page. The major tape suppliers supported the format - see Maxell CS=600 HD, Teac CS-500 XD. I'm not sure how to document an appropriate source for the article (take a photo of an old cassette tape backup system? Scan in an old manual?). It is pretty hard to find adverts from the time since advertising was banned on the Internet back then... --Blainster (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Extremaduran language, GRAMMATICAL REVISION, PLEASE, --O extremenho (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revert to Phoenician alphabet

Hi! You recently reverted my removal of a section from the Phoenician alphabet article that discusses an inscription found in Sidon, asking "Why? This article is about the alphabet, not the language it's used to write." You are correct, but this inscription was not some sort amalgamation of Hebrew words written using the Phoenician alphabet. If you review the source (a New York Times article from 1855), you'll see that it states quite explicitly: "[A facsimile of the carving] proves that the inscription is in ancient Hebrew characters, and that all of it is Hebrew excepting a few words, which, perhaps, may be." The source never says anything about it being written using the Phoenician alphabet. I hope that clarifies the reason for my removal of the paragraph. I'll wait to revert until I've heard back from you though. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I think I'd have some trouble finding the original NYT article, but I guess I can take your word for it. I wonder, however, what actually differentiates the Phoenician alphabet from a very early Hebrew alphabet, aside from the language they're used to write? It's likely the same question asked by whoever proposed a merger between Phoenician alphabet and Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (the latter basically say "the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet, just used to write Hebrew"). Do you know just what sort of alphabet was used in the NYT-cited inscription? --LjL (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So the NYT article is available in their archives. You have to remember though that this was 150 years ago, so I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source for factual information about the archaelogical find in general (in terms of editorial oversight, or even just general linguistic knowledge at the time). The article essentially says that they found a "Phenician" inscription on the sarcophagus for one of the kings of Sidon: "...there were only a very few remains of Phenician writing known, all of which are very short, together amounting to only a small portion of the newly discovered one..." Your guess that it may have been Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is quite likely I'd say, especially because they describe it as "ancient Hebrew characters" and say a professor translated it into modern Hebrew. Perhaps the passage should be moved over to the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet article instead of the Hebrew alphabet one? If the two articles end up getting merged, then it could be merged back as well. ← George^[talk] 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. --LjL (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar in Satania

Bueno, entonces como sería domined by the internet, il spagnolo usa due sinni d'interrogazione, recordalo, --O extremenho (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Leíste lo que escribi en mi "clarify"? Te he preguntado si querías decir "dominated by the Internet" (tu habías escrito "dominED FOR the Internet"). En vez de criticar mi español (que no debería aún utilizar en la Wikipedia en inglés), por que no pones mas atención a los tags que pongo en los articulos, en vez de eliminarlos sin leerlos? --LjL (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand it. --O extremenho (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Really I don't understand, please correct it in Satania --O extremenho (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have. --LjL (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Debate over inclusion of audio recording as external link.

You are out of line by telling me to desist from arguing in favor of a certain external link at the Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline article. The link was placed there just hours ago. To date three editors have made a comment. Although they all oppose my edit, this is too soon to claim any consensus. I'm perfectly entitled to argue my case and extract from them some compehensive arguments. LTSally (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly discuss the addition; what I don't feel you can do is actually add the link to the article without prior consensus, since you agree that it'd be a case of ignoring (making an exception to) a guideline, which requires prior consensus. --LjL (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

About the references

La referencia que borrasti nu paeçía, quiziás polel su nombri (angu sobri apellíus), peru nesa huenti apaiçía lu que comprobaba que Estremaúra hue de Lión.

La referencia que tu borraste non parecia, per il suo nome (sopra apelativi)...

No comproba nada la referencia de un sitio web qualquier que podria haber hecho yo. Lee la pagina sobra las referencias. --LjL (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tu non hai entendito, nesa pagina web, aparecia que il reino spagnolo di Extremadura, fue parte del de León, esa pagina non è un blog-. --O extremenho (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Saluti

Y quien dijo que es un blog? Solo digo que no es una fuente fiable. Es una publicacion cientifica? No creo. Solo es un sitio web. WP:RS dice: "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". "Published" significa "publicadas", en libros o revistas cientificas. Tambien dice: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process", que significa que las fuentes fiables son material creible publicado con un proceso de publicacion fiable. Un sitio web amatorial? No es eso.

Pues yo no queria una citacion que diga que Extremadura fue parte de Leon, mas sobre todo una para "the cultural upheaval of Spanish-speaking Salamanca's University was the cause of the quick Castilianisation of the eastern parts of this province". --LjL (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Entendito --O extremenho (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ISBN and Google Books

Hi. I've replied on my own talk page. — AdiJapan 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do? — AdiJapan 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Well, just add it back. Meanwhile, though, I'm thinking of bots that might make this smoother by finding out which sites have a given book by itself. --LjL (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that would be a good idea. Also bots that replace dead links would be really helpful, although probably not possible in general, but only in specific situations. — AdiJapan 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

About La posada de los muertos

Why it was redirected?, I have two reasons for no redirect it

It is a single

It is a most known Mägo de Oz songs

There is other error, la posada de los muertos, is a song of the album Gaia II: La voz dormida, no from Finisterra. --Der Extremadurisch (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a whole AfD discussion about it. You chose to not take part in it. Your problem. I'm not going to talk about this now. --LjL (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ljl, this user is clearly upset but seems to be making good faith, if wrongheaded, edits, and it seems that English is not their first language. Take a moment, breath, and next time you respond to them try to be a bit more patient, polite, and less bite-y. --M^ask? 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look further up this talk page, you'll see I've had long discussions with the users, including ones in Spanish (or some broken version of it in my case). At this stage, it's well past assumption of good faith. There's a difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand; also, "not knowing English" is a really poor excuse when you're editing the English Wikipedia and not having the humility to accept that, if you don't know English, then perhaps you aren't in the best position to know what the policies and guidelines are. --LjL (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not do that, we have a good relation. --O extremenho (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC). Thanks for your corrections

Provoking

I have no problem with "acknowledging reality" thanks, I have never denied that any "discussions took place" and I have never deliberately sought to provoke you, or any others, "for the sake of eliciting an emotional reaction" (or for any other sake, for that matter). I do not use "psychological tricks" (which in this case would be very off-topic, in my view). I don't accuse others with whom I might disagree of "wasting Talk page space" and I do not make false accusations as you did about me here [2] (and for which I have still received no apology). And no, I cannot imagine that you ever laugh. But your emotional response is, of course, none of my business (although even Chillum tries to have a sense of humour occasionally). Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will bring further complaints about your inappropriate use of talk pages to more appropriate venues than your talk page since people's "emotional response" to what you may write is "none of your business". Have a good day. --LjL (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I now see - you are an administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm... no? --LjL (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said countless times, I won't apologize for pasting the wrong link instead of the one I intended. But you've repeatedly shown you choose to ignore what doesn't suit your purposes. --LjL (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation had nothing to do with pasting a wrong link. And the times are easily countable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no accusation in the first place from my part; I was simply pointing to things that had been said and which you seemed to deny having been said; I took no moral judgment about that; I simply provided diff links (some of them being the wrong ones, admittedly). I won't apologize for something I haven't done and you're making up.

That is actually another instance where I have a lot of trouble assuming good faith and not believing instead that you were trying to provoke me all along.

If on the other hand you're just very sarcastic and you think that makes you very funny, think again. --LjL (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of your "pointing to things that had been said" which, apparently, was not a wrong one, and which I'm not making up:[3] Please explain why you were so ready to support Dlabtot's accusation of "IDHT" - of which you now continue to accuse me. And what evidence was there of "veiled personal attacks" apart from your's and Dlabtot's personal opinions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not support them. You had claimed you HADN'T BEEN ACCUSED of "IDHT", and I showed you (modulo wrong link) that you had. That hardly amounts to SHARING or ENDORSING those accusations, but it seems that such details are entirely irrelevant to you. I am indeed accusing you of IDHT now, but for entirely unrelated reasons. --LjL (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggested that I hadn't PREVIOUSLY been accused of IDHT". Art LaPella had criticised Roux, not me, for IDHT, as he later clarified. And why does asking for clarification about somene's statement amount to "veiled personal attacks"? And what are the reasons that you now accuse me of IDHT? And exactly what is the nature of your "further complaints to more appropriate venues". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "previously" compared to what?

You were accused of IDHT here (yes, you, as Roux was clearly talking to you, indentation and all):

[...] The same is not true for internet inkblot images, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The entire argument is known as 'shutting the barn door after the horse is gone.' The cat is well out of the bag, the argument has been extensively refuted for three years, and the fact that a very small group of you refuses to accept the consensus is neither here nor there; at this point you are engaging in ignoring what other have been saying for three years and tendentious editing. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Later, you were said to have been previously accused of IDHT:

You have been repeatedly been directed to the Refusal to 'get the point' section of our behavioral guideline against disruptive editing. If you haven't yet, you should review it. As for how to treat editors who are engaging in disruptive behavior, it's already well established practice on Wikipedia to use warnings followed by a gradually escalating series of topic and/or site bans. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

but you asked where that took place:

I see. I was asking this: "how many of the editors who have signed up to Rfc statements are administrators?" Could you show me where I was previously directed to WP:IDHT? And where exactly was that "veiled personal attack" that I made? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

so I told you (with a wrong link, the right one being intended to be one to the FIRST quoted snipped that I pasted during the course of THIS post):

Unwilling, not necessarily unable. Dlabtot obviously meant at least this (as the "veiled personal attacks" go) and this and this (as for IDHT). --LjL (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

With me so far? Yes/no?

As for the "veiled personal attack", you're mistaken. Nobody, I believe, accused you of that because you asked for "clarification about somene's statement". It referred to this:

Thanks for making your motivation clear, Dlabtot. Yes, of course, "administrative tools". I hadn't realised that it was only the editors with those tools that were trying to produce a "better encyclopedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, since 1) the above ditinctly sounds like a thinly veiled personal attack 2) what I diff'd was the comment immediately following that one, and clearly being a follow-up to that one, which said:

Firstly, you would be well advised to refrain from casting aspersions or questioning the motivations of other editors. Secondly, what is I hadn't realised that it was only the editors with those tools that were trying to produce a "better encylopedia". supposed to mean? Of course I did not say or imply anything remotely like that. Please refrain from further attempts at veiled personal attacks. Failed or not, such efforts are inappropriate and contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above sounds distinctly like a personal attack warning directed to the comment of yours immediately previous. Justified or not, it was obviously the comment that Dlabtot later referred to, and that's why I diff'd to it saying it was obvious.

Now, I've done the best that I could, and spent quite a number of minutes, fetching stuff from the talk page AGAIN to clarify this; in case it's still not clear, I'm sorry, but I won't waste any more time with this. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you are wasting more time. But as the accused party here, I don't feel it's such a total waste of my time. As you will see from my Talk page (the whole history of which you are welcome to check) I am not used to being accused of anything by anyone. So this is all rather a new and unwelcome experience for me, I'm afraid.

You have waited until THIS post to correct your mistaken links that you put in on 14 Sept (except that they are not corrected on that page, only here)?

Although some do it relatively freely, it's considered rude to edit one's talk page comments later, so I have never done that (except from striking through one of the links very shortly after you pointed out the first mistake, which is considered acceptable). I thought I did, however, repeatedly made it clear to you that the link paste itself was mistaken. I'm sure I've mentioned that a number of times, and even apologized for that (and only that!), although it was merely a mistake. --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How can me reading and responding to a mistaken link (two mistaken links?) pasted by you, be construed as me having "repeatedly shown [I] choose to ignore what doesn't suit [my] purposes"?

Is that the only thing you've said in your life? Hardly. Perhaps I referred to entirely other things. Although admittedly, your stubborness in requesting an apology from me when all I feel that I did is 1) made a bit of a mess with pasting links and 2) provide with diffs that had been asked for, without even directly endorsing anything in them (although you took it as if I did endorse it; that's another thing you tend to do that does get on my nerves). --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux's comment was directed not to me personally, but to "a very small group of you". I choose not to be part of any small group and the comments I make are on my own behalf. Roux gave no evidence of his claim, it was his opinion.

So what? When in the posting where I provided the diffs did I claim I had any evidence of it being other than his opinion? (as for the "small group", it did seem to me like that part was pretty much directed to you personally) --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You have now chosen to accuse me of IDHY but for "entirely unrelated reasons". Please, what are these reasons?

They're that you're making ridiculous claims of previous long and painful discussion not applying to the Rey-Osterrieth article because of falsities like DanglingDiagnosis' policy "not being about test disclosure" (which it is), and absurdities like that. Your arguments are now based on nothing except on disacknowledging previous discussion and consenus; that's what I believe is not acceptable. --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You have threatened to "bring further complaints about [my] inappropriate use of talk pages to more appropriate venues than [my] talk page". Should you not at least explain to me first what those complaints are? Why is my use of talk pages "inappropriate"?

I complained on your talk page. Yes, that was a complaint, in case it didn't show. Since your response to it was, in my opinion, less than ideal, I informed you that, in case I will have any more (further) complaints of the same or similar sort, I will report them to relevant noticeboards rather than on your talk page. --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the very first contribution you make to either the article OR the talk page for The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: [4], directed personally at me, telling me that I am "ranting" and that I "should give up"? Won't other editors think that you are more concerned with picking a fight with me than with building a good article?

That is not my first contribution to that page. Check again, please. Your browser should have "Find in page" function (the same that I used with limited success to give diffs in the post under dispute, by the way). --LjL (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that your initial apparent support for Dladtot's accusation did not necessarily mean that you agreed with it or that you "took any moral judgment", but your responses and comments since that point all very strongly suggest that you did. And do now.

It is obvious that you are a genuine and intelligent editor. I can accept that your comments are made in good faith. But I have no wish to be repeatedly "told off" in a tone that is reminiscent of a domineering school mistress. Neverthless, I have no wish also to continue any argument with you. So I'd like to know if you would now like us both to draw a line under this dispute or if you wish us to take it further.

p.s. why does your talk page have the "Category:Wikipedia administrators" tag at the bottom?

Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a... very good question. To the best of my knowledge, though, that tag is incorrect. --LjL (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized it's because I put it there in User:LjL/Header. I stole that with minimal changes from User:Xeno's page, and didn't realize it included an administrator category tag. It was never my intention to pose as an administrator, I'm sorry for that. --LjL (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, enjoy your noticeboards. I tried. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And I replied point by point, which is more than I thought I'd care to do. Feh. --LjL (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

bye. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

About the section phonological characteristics in the article Extremaduran language

All the references in this section are in Ismael Carmona's dictionary. Saluti--O extremenho (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which you still have not properly cited as I had requested. "Ismael Carmona García's dictionary" is not a proper citation, and I couldn't even use it to find information from the Internet! Give TITLE, PUBLISHER, DATE, ISBN NUMBER. Thank you.

Also, if "all references in the section" are in that dictionary, then why did you only cite it for "Occasional replacement of the consonants l/r or r/l"? --LjL (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's Ismael Carmona García (in the picture). --Der Künstler (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it correct now?(the reference) --Der Künstler (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Are you using an Extremaduran Wikipedia editor's personal "dictionary" as a source for the English Wikipedia, am I reading this correctly? --LjL (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe that the dictionary is not a fiable sources. --Der Künstler (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer my question, please. --LjL (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Si, pero su ortografia es la oficial de la güiqipeya, tiene 2 ediciones, pero solo una esta en Internet. --Der Künstler (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Y quien deci que tiene que estar en Internet? Si es un libro, es much mejor. Solo necesitan las informaciones sobre el libro: sobre todo, el numero ISBN.

Que su ortografia sea la oficial de Guiquipeya no significa nada: Wikipedia no puede ser utilizada como fuente para se misma. --LjL (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: If I search for the title you have now added, "Izionariu castellanu-estremeñu", on Google, I find one hit: the Wikipedia article. Tell me, what should I make of that? Why on earth should I believe it's not some random person's private, non-peer-reviewed enterprise? Please, find a better source. Lee WP:RS. --LjL (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bueno, non mire la sua ortografia in meno, gli è un linguista. Además gli è un parlante (palranti au falanti in estremeñu) nativo d'extremeño. --Der Künstler (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup -- Rico 16:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work at Zilog Z80

I don't know what the ratio is between the number of "taggers" who heroically tag articles with "fact" or "unreferenced" or "POV", and who heroically put project banners on talk pages, and the number of editors who actually contribute content - but it's large. A belated "Thank you" for all your work on Zilog z80 in spite of rather unsupportive remarks from a tagger. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Patrick Zuili and friends

They took my name off the patent (That I invented (Not him)) using my previos patent for Peer to Peer networking. I was introduced to him and they where trying to great a secure email. (I took it further) by making different devices talk with each other and tieing it to the peer to peer. I dont like others taking credit for my work! I dont like taking credits, but I hate people that try too.

Jeffrey Ice, The True Inventor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.203.167 (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WCST picture

I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to request your help.

I work in neuropsychology. I'm very concerned that a test that is routinely given, the WCST, is compromised by a picture I believe you uploaded to the site.

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WisconsinCardSort.png

Would you remove this picture or assist me in doing so?

This is a very important test, which is routinely given to many patients. I know that your picture is not the WCST exactly, but it is so close to the real test that it's just as compromising as posting an actual picture of the WCST would be. Providing this kind of information compromises my ability to evaluate patients.

I have already edited the Wikipedia article to remove compromising & unethical content, but I'm not sure how to remove the picture.

Can you help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anytree (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I think I got it figured out!!!! I hope you understand. It's so unlike me to limit information, but this test is just no good when images and information about the method are shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anytree (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidents

I undid your deletion once again; what is stated is clearly in the sources given, you can check it. I have now put literal quotes concerning the core claims into the edit comment. Please be constructive and don't simply delete statements. You can use the talk page to voice your concerns and ask others to see if they agree or not. Note that not every single word of every sentence has to match the source completely, it's sufficient if the basic facts are right. Unit 2 is in a very severe condition and it's meaningless to try to hide that fact from the public. --rtc (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

From your history and the wording of your paragraph it seems clear to me that you have an agenda; you may or may not have noticed that, eventually, I did add the valve incident in a way that reflected the source much more closely. Try to make unbiased edits in the future. LjL

Of course I have an agenda, those who say they haven't are lairs. My agenda is neutrality, accuracy and clarity. but I do not claim to be infallible. As I am watching TV/streams while editing the article, I can often add inforamtion before it turns up on the news tickers; sometimes the news tickers put the things in a little bit of a different way, but it's not a reason to remove the sources or completely rewrite the paragraph. The specific paragraph we are discussing about (not written by me, by the way!) was unbiased and reflected the facts as well as the source accurately. Your description of the valve accident was cloudy and unclear. Neutrality does not mean using weasel words. "It was reported" "Other reports say there have been problems" -- that tells us almost nothing. --rtc (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

CEA-708

Hey I saw your editing on the CEA-708 page and you seem to know a lot about closed captioning. I am trying to develop an application that can identify television show's CC stream and you might be able to help. If you don't mind, could you email me at evan_thomas@umail.UCSB.edu your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, -Evan

Evan (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI-report: User:Reisio and letters A to Z

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for informing me. LjL (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Digraph and Sum. 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) 10:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to R 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:

*𝐑𝐫 𝑅𝑟 𝑹𝒓 𝖱𝗋 𝗥𝗿 𝘙𝘳 𝙍𝙧 ℛ𝓇 𝓡𝓻 ℜ𝔯 𝕽𝖗 𝚁𝚛 ℝ𝕣 : Unicode font variants for use as mathematical symbols ([[Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to S may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

*{{IPA|ʃ}} : [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA}} [[Esh (letter)|Esh]], used for the [[voiceless postalveolar fricative]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to H 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:

[Etruscan language|Etruscan]] and [[Latin]] had {{IPA|/h/}} as a [[phoneme]] but almost all [[Romance languages]] lost the sound—
|digraphs]], such as {{angbr|ch}} {{IPAc-en|tʃ|}}, {{IPAc-en|ʃ}}, {{IPAc-en|k}}, or {{IPAc-en|x}}), {{angbr|gh}} (silent, {{IPA|/ɡ/}}, {{IPA|/k/}}, {{IPA|/p/}}, or {{IPA|/f/}}), {{angbr|ph}} ({{IPA|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted links on Amiga

Hi Ljl,

Nice to meet you.

I must admit, I was not involved with Amiga, so please excuse me, if I touched your turf.

But then, please explain, why you did deleted my addition.

I believe that this is historically relevant. This is a contemporary article from the press at that time, actually a defining article explaining the differences between mac and amiga, I simply do not understand why you did delete my additons, because I believe that this really adds a tremendous amount of info and insight of the historical situation at that time. Please explain your rational.

I'd like to ask you to revert your deletion of my edit, or even better though, add to it!

~eike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edx (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I do not doubt that the content in your addition is interesting per se; it's just that I personally (but I think I share this view with many other Wikipedians) tend to be on the strict side about external links on Wikipedia, because they tend to proliferate a lot ending up in never-ending and open-ended lists of links. How much material there is about the Amiga? A lot, I can assure you. We can link to official pages (by Commodore, Amiga Inc. and so on), those are generally appropriate. We can source a lot of material without making it part of the external links. We can also add a limited number of extremely significant third-party links that are directly and solely about the subject of the article. Your link already fails one of these criteria: a comparison with the Apple Macintosh? Why the Mac specifically? Should we then put the same link in the Apple Macintosh article too? (Oh, I can assure the editors there would have objections!).

If you still think the link belongs there, I suggest you place it on the article's talk page with a request for other editors to evaluate it and include it if they deem it relevant enough. I will respect the consensus, although personally I'm still oriented against inclusion. LjL (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)