This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SheffieldSteel (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 5 November 2008 (→Your post at the admins' noticeboard demanded action...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:57, 5 November 2008 by SheffieldSteel (talk | contribs) (→Your post at the admins' noticeboard demanded action...: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
Scalar implicature
Maybe better to merge the page with Pragmatics as the page on its own makes no sence Ochib (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Americanlinguist. There does not seem to be a clear basis for the Patent nonsense tag on the scalar implicature artcle. The article did not meet the description at Misplaced Pages:Patent nonsense, so it likely was a mistake. The Scalar implicature article was tagged by people who watch new pages. Typically, the new pages are patrolled from the back of the unpatrolled backlog. A reason for this is how it makes people feel seeing their new article tagged so quickly. The Scalar implicature page seems to have been patrolled from the front of the unpatrolled backlog. It seems that it was well menaning, but could have been handled better. Everyone is a volunteer here, and many mistakes are made. I hope this does not sour your interest in contributing to Misplaced Pages. To find like minded Wikipedians, you might want to consider visiting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Linguistics. -- Suntag ☼ 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
concerning OR
Hi; just wanted to clarify that for practical purposes there is a good bit of leeway in the Misplaced Pages rules when it comes to noncontroversial topics. As long as you're describing accepted mainstream views, rather than original ideas, you should feel free to explain them in the way you think works best. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Starting draft pages in your own namespace
Hello, in case you didn't know, when you create a complicated or long article you don't have to create it in the main namespace (article namespace) immediately. Instead, you can create a draft as a subpage in your own namespace (user namespace), then work on it for some time while being sure that nobody else is going to interfere with it. After it is more or less presentable, you can move it into main namespace. Subpages are separated by a slash "/" from their "parent" page (in your case User:Americanlinguist). So, if you want to start a draft article on "FooBar", the easiest way is simply to type "User:Americanlinguist/FooBar" into the search box; you'll be presented with a message "Misplaced Pages does not have a user page with this exact name", and below there'll be an option to "Start the User:Americanlinguist/FooBar page". Just click on that and start writing! You can keep the draft for some time. After it is more or less in good shape, don't forget to move it into the main namespace!
Please see Misplaced Pages:Subpages for more on subpages.
-- 131.111.223.43 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was just about to suggest the same. It really works and helps avoid nasty comments. Although it shouldn't have happened, you should understand that new page patrollers have to go through literally thousands of edits a day. It's simply unavoidable for them not to make mistakes. Perhaps the speedy deletion tag should not contain the word nonsense... - Mgm| 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A voice of experience
The first new article that I ever created, before I even created an account, was nominated for deletion. I'm still here some … cough … time later. Don't worry. Cite sources copiously, make using the preview button a habit, and you'll find that your time here will go with considerably less incident. Have a look at User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors.
We also have a whole bunch of citation templates so that your citations will automatically be formatted in the Misplaced Pages house style, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
greetings, some people are curious about you
On Misplaced Pages Review, some people with an interest in linguistics are discussing your recent appearance on Misplaced Pages. Some of the users there are experienced Misplaced Pages editors. You might find it helpful to ask for help there, it's safer than getting into edit wars on-wiki (as I see you already have). | The thread is here. Please create a user account there and say hello. Thanks. --76.191.202.13 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's very interesting, but how do they know I don't already have an account at Misplaced Pages Review? But then, why would I have an account at Misplaced Pages Review when I have only just joined Misplaced Pages? Very puzzling I must think this one through. Americanlinguist (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you had already posted at WR, then people would have recognized your style already. Also, there are some stinging rules for making an account, like not being able to use a email from a free service unless you have a compelling reason to use one, in which case you will need to explain the reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Lol, forget it, I just read the latest post at the relevant WR thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
XLinkBot alert for The Philosophical Review
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Philosophical Review has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'members\.aol\.com' (link(s): http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html) .
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The bots are fun to work around, arnt they? this one scared the pants off me just recently; see Talk:Fath Ali Khan for the details of my inquiry into that warning. Ultimately, the bots do work that humans neglect to do, for good or ill. Any chance you have come across scans of the first issue of the The Philosophical Review, or scans of other notable articles that are in the Public domain? (pre-1923 are all PD; pre-1964 might be PD but it takes a bit more work to prove it) If so, we have a transcription sub-project. John Vandenberg 01:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was the bit about 'my creator' that was somewhat unnerving. What would you liked scanned in of the first issue? Front page? Americanlinguist (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- An image of the front page would be good the Misplaced Pages article, however ... pagescans of the entire issue is more what I had in mind, ... :-) It may already be scanned on JSTOR or Google Books. John Vandenberg 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - I don't have access to a scanner unfortunately (at least, have never been able to work one). I do have many images though. Americanlinguist (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- An image of the front page would be good the Misplaced Pages article, however ... pagescans of the entire issue is more what I had in mind, ... :-) It may already be scanned on JSTOR or Google Books. John Vandenberg 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was the bit about 'my creator' that was somewhat unnerving. What would you liked scanned in of the first issue? Front page? Americanlinguist (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Scalar implicature
On 1 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scalar implicature, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
BorgQueen (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi many thanks. Indeed I created the article from scratch, not without some difficulty (see above). Americanlinguist (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Your post at the admins' noticeboard demanded action...
"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Misplaced Pages is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC). Not to be confused with Cod throwing. Humorous Misplaced Pages project page
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Misplaced Pages when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.
Example
Whack! The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians. To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place
{{trout}}
on their talk page.
Apologies if this wasn't the sort of "action" you were looking for. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)