User talk:LjL/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Weasel wording at vowel

Hi Ljl,

Problem with removing the weasel wording and simply saying there's a conflict is that at the end of the paragraph we conclude that there is no conflict. Maybe you can think of a better way of putting it that wouldn't sound so weasely, but we should avoid contradicting ourselves. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is an internal conflict. The lengthy discussion of [j] and [w] (which, by the way, should probably be moved out of the lede as it simply clutters it a lot and doesn't belong in a general introduction) is a specific issue related to this, but the problem comes also with, say, the mentioned [l]: is it a consonant or is it a vowel? Usually it is a consonant, but in some cases it acts as the nuclesus of a syllable, so under that definition of vowel, it is a vowel when used as such. This should be acknowledged as a fact stemming from the dual definition. LjL (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you there. The same is true with [ɹ], [r] and nasal stops. The way it was worded, though, it seemed to be contradicting itself. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There is just too much of a fuss in the lede about [j] and [w]. I think maybe we should make a section about this vocoid terminology and explain it there, while simply mentioning in the lede that "vowel" can have the two slightly different meanings depending on context. LjL (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I moved it to a separate section as a start. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the lede looks much better now. LjL (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

hi

ur nice and cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.124.100 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you! LjL (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to "Common Era"

Judging by the quotes that you provided, your edit to "Common Era" does not provide adequate citations. The citations support the idea that AD refers to "Our Lord" or some similar phrase, but does not establish that this served as motivation for Jewish scholarship to change to CE/BCE. --signing for User:Jc3s5h

It wasn't intended as such, but just to support the statement that it refers to Jesus as Lord, which is the sentence that came immediately before the "citation needed" tag. I see you've now also requested a citation for the statement before that one, which is fine with me. LjL (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

English language

Hi LjL. You made a good point at the AN/I noticeboard. I thought that I had included the word "comprehension" when referring to Keysanger's use of English. I provided Neil a good example of it ("An example of a problem..."). Basically, paraphrasing and summarizing sources in any language requires that the individual have an adequate (i.e., competent) understanding of the language. I am assuming good faith in Keysanger's misunderstanding of sources; otherwise, he is doing these things on purpose. Regardless, thank you again for the comment—I will make sure to fix it!--MarshalN20 Talk 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that sort of misinterpretation of sources you present in the example is something that a native English speaker could very easily fall into, and if you put it down to "English skills", you might not attract much sympathy (although yes, technically even a native speaker can lack "English comprehension"; I just wouldn't put it that way). LjL (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I totally understand. I see now that it was insensitive of me to write it the way I did; thank you for opening my eyes. I will edit the proposal accordingly.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I find it interesting that you can write (but not speak) English. I have a friend who can write and read Arabic, but he can't speak it either (or, at least he isn't well-understood). My French speaking is also not on par with my writing/reading. Monolinguals usually don't understand the complexity of being multilingual. [:)]--MarshalN20 Talk 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've spent many years communicating in various ways on the Internet (mostly in English, just a little in Italian), but only in writing. At this point there are many technical or semi-technical topics where I find myself lacking words in Italian, even though I know them in English, but when it comes to speaking (and understanding spoken) English, well, I've tried and it turns out I can more or less do it, but it's just a tad embarrassing. LjL (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I've also had that experience with English. It's the listening part that gets complicated. I've been using Duolingo recently to sharpen my French listening; it's surprisingly helpful. Language is an art that takes lots of practice—much in the same way as most learning in general (albeit it's not as easy to practice speaking, even with the emergence of the Internet). Please let me know if I can ever be of help to you here in WP.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Computational informatics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian. 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) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your last edit in Asturix

I agree that the sentence " against 300 competitors under-18 years old" is awkward, but your edit removes information from the article. That is, that he won in the "teen" category, and that there were 300 competitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.42.149 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@81.35.42.149: there is nothing saying that superfluous information can't be removed from an article. The article is not about him, nor about the price; the article is about a Linux distribution. Saying that its original creator won a prize might be worthwhile, but detailing how many participants there were and how old they were seems completely out of place. If people really want to know, anyway, they can click on the linked source and find out. --LjL (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Book numbers in citations

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System you write: "There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate the entire citation each time (or we change the article to Harvard referencing, which I don't even like)."

I agree, I don't like Harvard referencing either. The simplest solution is using the {{rp}} template to append page number(s) after each ref tag. There are some other choices at Help:References and page numbers. -- intgr [talk] 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I should have known about that template; last time I stumbled upon a problem like this, I was trying to provide different quotations (usually provided by a single "quote=" paramters) for similar references, not just different page numbers, which are easier to provide as they are clearly a more compact piece of information. By the way, the !vote is appreciated. LjL (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey! I just wanna thank you for your help in Asturix. A lot of work must be done in the article, but your contribution is helping a lot! --Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thanks for looking at my application. LjL (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment.

Hi LjL, I have replied to your question on the Administrator's page. Thanks for commenting. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That funny smell

Air Freshener
Perhaps this will help remove the smell of Socks. :) AlbinoFerret 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversial source

Sorry, but I can't recognized this report of US departament Bulgaria 2015 Crime and Safety Report, which you added in Sofia as reliable source. The information is too controversial and too different than official statistics of Bulgarian and European agences. It's government source for another country and can be influenced by political bias. I deleted this following WP:NPOV and WP:No original research.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stolichainin: If you actually read WP:NPOV and linked articles, you will find that it doesn't talk about suppressing sources, but about presenting a balanced summary of sources. If two sources are conflicting, we present both and attribute them. That "you don't recognize" a source just means that, you don't recognize it. Other editors disagree. And in any case, that is no justification to blank an entire section, as I've explained to you in the warning on your talk page. WP:NOR, on the other hand, doesn't apply at all, since it is about research that Wikipedia editors do, not about research that sources do. As I said, please don't throw guidelines that don't apply at random. You also threw WP:UNDUE, but that says to avoid giving undue weight, not to give no weight at all to something as basic as crime statistics. That Wikipedia is not a newspaper is also not a justification, as crime statistics aren't "news" at all, and anyway Wikipedia does report news - read what the essay actually says, not what you think it says. And anyway, let's discuss this in the proper place, not on my talk page. LjL (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I just want to ask you to stop your edits in this article. It's article in encyclopedia, not a evening news! If you hate Sofia by some reason it's your problem! No need to write whatever bullshits there. Thank you!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stolichanin: Tone down your language on my talk page. I don't hate Sofia, you seem to be the one wanting to suppress factual information about that city. You should stop immediately. You are well past the WP:3RR and you were reported for that, nevermind asked numerous times to stop this. LjL (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The crime exist in London too, but nowhere in their article is mentoined about that. But in WP exist article Crime in London, where all things are good explained. You just can to create an article Crime in Sofia and to add this info there. What is the problem?--Stolichanin (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There is not nearly enough information yet to create a separate article (despite your ludicrous WP:UNDUE claims), and such an article would have to be wikilinked from Sofia anyway (I have no idea why the one about London isn't, I might fix that). In any case, this debate is about Sofia and its specifics, not about other cities. Well, it's not really a debate, but let's call it a debate. LjL (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stolichanin: you will be pleased to know that I have now expanded the section about police and crime, and linked to the main article on London. LjL (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime in Sofia

Hello, Ljl!

I'm sorry if I'm offended you! Because the text raised during the last days, I remove it to the new article Crime in Sofia, where the all POVs were represented. I want to ask you, it may be better to add some link to the new article, but where exactly. May be in the beginning of section "Government and low"?--Stolichanin (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The (short) length of the section does not currently warrant creating a separate article for it, and even if at some point enough material were available for a separate article, there would be no reason not to provide a summary of it inside the main Sofia article. That's how it's usually done: a section, with a {{main|Secondary Article}} template, and then a summary of the secondary article's contents. In any case, I strongly suggest you stop removing the section without consensus for now. LjL (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be very useful, because it will stoped the edit wars in this article and the editors can to concentrated over the work there.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Or you could concentrate on the work there, if you want, without censoring relevant material out of articles. Seriously, how crime rates in a city may not be considered relevant in the city's article is way beyond me. LjL (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm living in this city from 24 years and believe me, many of represented sources gives a too controversial and disputed information. Many of them are of newspaper or tabloids origin and sometimes representing wrong interpretations of some facts. The question is very specific and I suggest from the beginning to remove that material in new article like in London and Crime in London. Sorry, but claims like "the capital of corruption of Europe" seems very...excited!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Check out one of the first sentences in WP:V (one of the core policies): "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.". Your personal experience in Sofia can't be considered a reliable source; we can, of course, discuss particular sources' reliability, but the fact in itself that something on Wikipedia is sourced from a newspaper doesn't make Wikipedia a newspaper (in fact, a lot of material on Wikipedia is sourced from reputable newspapers). LjL (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources were representing in Talk page, but you just ignore them. And what is the problem to create a new article about that. It's a normal policy in WP. In the new article you can to developed the questions and the content, because Sofia is overview article. Detail info can be find in Crime in Sofia. --Stolichanin (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm really starting to think you are not here to make an encyclopedia, but just to silence potentially negative information about things like "your" city. Anyway, I encourage you to keep the discussion on the RfC page, not here. LjL (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have really think you are here to create a negative image to Sofia, maybe following some nationalistic or political bias. Look, I make a compromise to you as I just copied the content in new article to devoloped this and the last think you can say about me is I'm censor. Maybe you are needed by more patience and to make a compromise too.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You should have discussed and reached some reasonable compromise long ago instead of furthering your by-now-pretty-obvious nationalistic bias about not wanting to show any of your city's negative aspects. I'm done discussing with your here. Talk on the article's talk page, if anywhere. I will revert any further edits to my talk page. Enough of this nonsense. LjL (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mediation

I am going to ask for a mediation there. Sorry, I can provide a series of atitudes of yours trought this entire process that clearly show you are lacking imparciality there. Why, I dont know. But seems enough. We are not getting anywhere with you ignoring secundary sources and engaging in WP:OR and your own interpretation of the Cosntitution. FkpCascais (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is allowed to make own interpretations of the primary source in the discussion page as far as I'm aware. However, you also said I'm making OR when in fact I was repeating what the secondary source say, so you really don't know what OR is. It's not repeating the secondary source and it's interpretations of the primary source. 91.236.250.250 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course it is. OR is not okay in articles, it can be entertained on talk pages to discuss an issue. But FkpCascais has clearly gone into rage mode again. It even shows through the change in amount of typos and so on. LjL (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, a check on imparciality then: tell me: diff. Couse till now, all you have been doing was finding ways to make me wrong. Lets see now. FkpCascais (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I am here User:LjL, now tell me, imposing their religion is not lowering their rights?FkpCascais (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP

Would you consider taking your discussions with the block evading IP to a forum outside of Wikipedia? E-mail or IRC would work well. The reason is that the user is not allowed to post on Wikipedia. It would be a lot easier to continue the conversation if the other side was not constantly being blocked and reverted. HighInBC 00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, at least here the fact we're communicating is transparent. You can see above that I explicitly refused to make edits following his directions, but that's already complicated enough when other people can see what he tells me; gets hairier when they can't. But maybe I can solve this by telling Mr IP that I'm not communicating with them anymore? 'cause this entire situation has got well beyond my amount of giving a damn about Croatia. LjL (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are acting by proxy for the user, nor was that what I meant to suggest. I also have very little interest in Croatia and am experiencing a similar exasperation with this issue. As far as I know there is no rule against you responding to the IP, my comment was more a suggestion to avoid the constant game of Whac-a-mole that is going on here. Your argument for transparency does make sense. I will leave it to your own judgement but will continue to revert and block this user until they address their indef block. HighInBC 00:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's well beyond anyone's amount of time. That's why people left. They got fed up with Fkp and now there's no one left to implement the consensus. It's hard dealing with disruptive editors, I know. I wouldn't blame you if you left as others did. I'll try to make less trouble to you. I apologize again. I really don't know why this admin is telling everyone I'm a sock, but that's ok. I'm ignoring it as I would with any other personal attack from a random user. It's only pointing out how admins have their word believed and how Wikipedia is just another place where people battle for influence. I don't guess someone would beleived me if I told that this admin is a sock of FkP. ;) 89.223.47.218 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
How can you not be a sock when you changed like two dozen IPs? That's pretty much the definition of it. Admins are doing their job. You are not going by the rules - that's your choice, but don't complain about the consequences. LjL (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
What pisses me off is seing all time LjL giving more credit to this nationalist lunatic IP that the sources I presented. I provide 20 sources saying "Serbs lost constitutive nation status", the IP comes here directing LjL how to challenge me, and there they go, "lets ignore 20 sources and do what IP sugests"... For God sake, the IP was blocked because is a nationalist lunatiic, the guardian of all of Croatia and Croats... FkpCascais (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you're currently coming across as much less of a lunatic? I've seen some of what the IP has told me, I've seen what User:Director has been saying as well, and they have some good points. You can have an army of sources all saying one thing, but the Croatian Constitution, as much of a primary source as it may be, is there for everyone to read (except it's a bit hard to find out which one is the 1990 draft, which the 1990 final, which the old 1974 one, which the 2001 revision...). You're not seeing the giant in front of you. LjL (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
So the 3 of you know to read better the Constitution than 20 scholars? Dont joke! You cant compare me to them at all. FkpCascais (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. LjL (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You are breaking rules LjL, and not just one. Wikipedia:Verifiability to start with. Dont let yourself go intoo that path. I will remind you WP:TRUTH. Stop Wikiloyering. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to accuse me of breaking rules feel free to do it at ANI on the relevant report. LjL (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Smart Filesystem (SFS)

Hi, I see you haven't been active on Wikipedia for a long time, but I thought I'd try informing you anyway that the Smart File System article is up for deletion, and has been relisted twice. I guess you may be too directly involved to endorse or oppose the deletion, but I thought perhaps you might have comments to make or know of sources to add. LjL (talk)

The only other "source" there is, is at: http://hjohn.home.xs4all.nl/SFS/ written by me and left up only for nostalgic reasons. It's an older source, and doesn't cover any changes since it was made public domain.

It's nice that Wikipedia wants to link to sources, but sometimes there just aren't any (don't expect SFS to be mentioned in books or other media). The article on SFS was written by me a long time ago, and I guess as the original programmer of the software it can't get more authoritive than that. The information in the article is still accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hendrikx (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That source (your site) is already mentioned in the article. It may seem counterintuitive but for Wikipedia, the fact that you're the author makes what you wrote less authoritative as a source in a way. SFS is actually mentioned in books (and some magazines), though! Just passing mentions, apparently not enough to sway the deleters. But see the current article. Anyway, we'll see how it goes: two people who were for deletion already changed their mind, and I reckon there is only the original nominator and one other person (who gave no serious justifications) who are for deletion. I'm not sure why the article keeps getting relisted: the consensus seems clear to me. LjL (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ferrets who use free software are very curious, couldn't help but read this section after looking at the one above. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: it's an old Amiga filesystem, it was freeware at first, but released as free software later. Now it's used in three different Amiga-related OS's (the Amiga community is very fork-y), and it was a pretty, well, smart filesystem for its time, if I may say so. LjL (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I already left a Keep, the manuals do satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. Sometimes WP can be to mainstream, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and that includes alternative OS's and their software sometimes. AlbinoFerret 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I am mostly an inclusionist in general. Article deletion is, conspicuously, one of the few things on Wikipedia that is almost irreversible, "destroying" the entire history of an article, and people's work (yes, I'm aware simple deletion can be undone, but it gets difficult very quickly). I think it should be reserved for clearly bogus articles like the typical example of garage bands, not for things like software that is known and used by a relatively large amount of people all over the world. Keeping an article is cheap, deleting it is expensive. And yet I keep seeing many terrible lists of things survive unscathed while there's a trickle of deletion of interesting niche stuff... LjL (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing my posts

Dont edit, change, add or remove my posts. If you want put it at ANI, but dont restore it there. There on the discussion, focus on the content please. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yourself, do not delete talk page posts, either. Especially if they are offensive posts of yours. Etiquette is to strike them out if you change your mind. I'm most certainly noting this incident at ANI. LjL (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Instead of doing your best to eliminate me, please focus on the questions raised by another editor there. I removed the comment not because it is wrong, I even thought of reporting Direktor, but because I want you to focus on content so you cannot have me as excuse. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Then if that's what you want, stop making accusations and swearing, and stop being the one telling other people not to accuse, when you routinely do it, as well as threaten "sanctions". LjL (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@FkpCascais: by the way, at this point I don't believe an iota in your good faith. You have manipulated me before and you are trying to manipulate everyone now. You, yourself, aren't focusing on the content, but on furthering your pro-Serbian agenda. I have no agenda for or against Serbs because I am, thankfully, from a place that's not involved in all this mess; but if everyone around there acts like you, then it's easy to realize why there was such a mess. LjL (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Director: says he's been doing that for quite some time. Maybe the ANI would be a good place to note that.89.164.236.170 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've basically been told to note at little as possible at the ANI in the near future (although I couldn't but note this double revert on a talk page). LjL (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. He cursed me as well, but maybe it's allowed to curse IP's. I can also see he curses much more on Serbian, so it's not a new thing. 89.164.236.170 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I read all about that awful guy don,t worry I am not related to him in any way I'm just say that the c company never did the Simpsons witch is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveyoooou (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again . Thank you again for saving my bacon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevsentell (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello LjL. Thanks for you efforts in dealing with the socks of "The Love Pony." Between you and BMK a whole drawerful of smelly socks were sniffed out. Your vigilance is much appreciated. Cheers and have a delightfully spooky week leading up to Halloween. MarnetteD|Talk 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

You might be interested in the report here. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thank you, I was going to do it, but you did it more extensively and with a detailed description of the issue. --LjL (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
They are not the same user... I really could have sworn they were. The two reverters, at least. LjL (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That is surprising; the reverters certainly pass the WP:DUCK test. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they're just "clever" and can use open proxies or whatnote, which the use of one IPv4 and one IPv6 also hints to. LjL (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too - although it's hard to recognize anyone in this situation who seems skilled enough for that. Bad news: this probably means that the reversion by "unrelated" new users will resume as soon as the semi-protection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe in a week's time I'll have reached a compromise with the other reasonable editor and we can have a useful but brief list and socks won't have to object-by-reverting. LjL (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be the best solution. And if they object-by-restoring the original list, against consensus, that could reasonably be described as vandalism. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice

I did as you suggested, I moved the discussion to the link you provided, hope things go in order. (N0n3up (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

@N0n3up: that's not what you were supposed to do, though... WP:RFC merely explains how to start a Request for Comments (which is done on the article's own talk page). LjL (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry, I'm not very experienced at this. (N0n3up (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

From a talk page stalker

You may have to create the archive for the bot to use. AlbinoFerret 00:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated

I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you [1]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It would be a bit too ironic if the misbehaving admin got away with the whole thing because they're, well, an admin, but the reporting IP didn't because they're, well, a mischievous IP. LjL (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job catching those barnstars. NeilN talk to me 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I think this is my first "real" barnstar in ten years... if you exclude one I deleted because of sad business. LjL (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but

Thanks for the revert on ANI but please don't 3rr template [2] an editor who had just been 3rr reminded [3]. Let's try to deescalate situations, okay? NE Ent 00:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the warning. LjL (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Origin of language

Report me for what? I didn't delete anyone else content so there was no content warring. I just present my language evolution model. And it is sourced with a peer reviewed paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolivaOren (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@PolivaOren: I told you for what: for WP:COI and WP:3RR. The former is obvious (you wrote the paper), and for the latter, it doesn't matter if you didn't delete other people's content, what matters is that you edit warred over your addition. Have you read WP:BRD? You were the one changing the status quo, you were reverted (with good reasons), you reverted back without giving any reasons. That's definitely not what you should do.
As to the paper itself, well, to me it's pretty obvious that a lone paper can't be used to propose a theory like that in the article, especially not as a very, very long section with no secondary sources. The paper is a primary source. Read the policy on reliable sources please, it gets into details about primary and secondary sources.
In any case, given your conflict of interest, the best course of action for you is to not introduce the material into the article at all, but simply discuss it on the talk page and ask others to introduce it in your stead in the extent and manner the WP:Consensus finds appropriate. LjL (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

From where to what language evolution theory

PolivaOren's content is now here: From where to what language evolution theory. I added a COI hat note. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Maybe I should have reported him after all, instead now an WP:AFD will likely have to take place. LjL (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no doubt this will deservedly be deleted, but please, "don't bite the newbies". Oren is a postdoc researcher (Google tells me) and deserves some respect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the respect I grant to people isn't based on their academic degrees. On the other hand, he edit-warred repeatedly at Origin of language, even after I repeatedly warned him not to, and then went on to create From where to what language evolution theory, even though I had explained to him how he should act given his WP:COI. This makes him a case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU in my book, which makes my respect slightly weaker, regardless of academic badges or anything else. LjL (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello @LjL

I am optimistic that this email finds you in good health.

Look! This Wikipedia is a global research site for many to gather information around the world, so entering wrong information could mislead these people. I am a Liberian-America, I was born and grown up in Liberia and Schooled there. I live in the US now. I have worked with the Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services, United Agency for International Development (USAID-Liberia) and the National Elections commission as well. I tried to rectify your mistakes and misinformation on this global site yet you reverted it.

Even your district listing are very wrong and naive. How will you say Grand Kru which is one of the smallest and least populated in Liberia has 17 Districts, Sinoe as you said have 16 Districts, Nimba which is the largest County and Second most populated after Cape Montserrado County has six districts? Those are all wrong and misleading information? Kru doesn't even have five statutory or Electoral districts and it is the least populated Country after River Cess. Please do a better research before publishing false information on a globally recognized site. I did Social Study Went I schooled in Liberia even before working so know how Knowledgeable I am when it comes to this. I know all the Statutory and Electoral Districts in Liberia by each of its 15 Counties, so if you don't know leave it for people that know it or simply asked.

Another thing, Who told you that only 15% of Liberia's 4.36 Million people speak English? Have you been there or you are counting people by their accent? Does a British Man and an American Man has the same accent? so does it means they don't speak english? Even if you take Monrovia for instance, which is 43% (1.86 Million) of the total population, English is what they speak, School and Do everything with. So you want us to believe that only 651,003 people speak english in the entire country?

Again, Gio is not the name for that ethnic group, it is the Dan ethnic group. That Ethnic group can be seen in Ivory Coast where they are called Yakubah. They migrated from the Ancient Songhai Empire. Gio is just the nick name so you don't put such in a place for reliable information.

LjL, Please take your information down because they are misleading and false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theojaspite (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Theojaspite: Hi, are you sure you are addressing the right person? I do have the Liberia article in my watch list, and may have made a couple of edits, but I really don't recall making any of the edits you mention and asserting those facts. I would likely not to do that, as I'm not actually very familiar with Liberia. Please remember you have the ability to make needed changes yourself, as long as you attribute them to reliable sources (claims on Wikipedia must be verifiable) and do not engage in edit warring, but instead discuss on articles' talk pages. LjL (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LjL/Archive_3&oldid=1138974539"