This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Defrank1311 (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 8 April 2012 (→UB Lib Dems: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:40, 8 April 2012 by Defrank1311 (talk | contribs) (→UB Lib Dems: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jim | Talk | Contribs | Sandbox | Logs | Blocks | Deletions | Protections | Uploads |
I'll reply to messages posted here on your talk page
I'll reply to emails on your talk page too, so please provide a link.
JSTOR
(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC) I have now created Misplaced Pages:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Araçari
- I went to the talk pages first to propose the change, and nobody objected.
- In linguistic terms, the spelling should indeed be araçari in order to yield the correct pronunciation /arasari/.
- Aracari is linguistically non-standard spelling in English, since it yields the incorrect pronunciation /arakari/.
- In order for people to be able to pronounce a word correctly, they need to have the information that makes that possible.
- Araçari is not Spanish. In Spanish the spelling is Arasarí.
- Garrigues and Dean use the spelling with the cedilla.
- I checked the purple project box before making any change. The title there is araçari. That led me to believe that it was inability to type accents rather than policy that had led to the spelling without the accent in the articles in question.
- An assumption of good faith on my part, and talking to me before simply reverting would have been nice.
Awien (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- - Façade (and café, and mañana, etc.): my point exactly. When necessary, the diacritics of loanwords are retained. .
- - I understood GF perfectly well. Calling an edit GF and treating it as being in good faith are not the same thing. By the same token, I see you’ve simply reverted my suggestion from the talk pages rather than responding to it. Not good form.
- - As far as consistency is concerned, the Toucans, Toucanets and Araçaris project is itself inconsistent: the project title uses the spelling with the cedilla, individual articles don’t.
- - In the absence of consensus and consistency, it is more logical to standardise the more functional spelling rather than the less functional. I was certainly planning on making the change throughout if I hadn’t run into the redirect problem, and been reverted before I had time to find out how to deal with it.
Michael Stevens
Your hasty deletion on the grounds that the article was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: unsourced biography of a living person" was patently a mistake.
The multiple cited references in the article included major respected sources such as the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the official websites of the Kennedy Center, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (confirming the multiple Emmy awards) and HBO. The subject of the article is also clearly notable by all Misplaced Pages standards for BLP.
Given the above, I would appreciate you reinstating the article immediately. Thank you Davidpatrick (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Areocracy is a good word
Areocracy is a good word - there are none like it -your explanation was a vague copy and paste and your action was rash. I'd like the word so I can use it and point to it when I need to write something on the web that is related. There's got to be a way to keep from my word getting stolen by you obnoxious veterans I already submitted the word to the dictionary people. You've made this a "thing" when it was just a new word that the world needs. I'd appreciate a reply and some clear thoughtful directions. thanks in advance! Ed Kingofallclergy (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
UB Lib Dems
Regarding the article created: http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_Birmingham_Liberal_Democrats This article was deleted for suspected copyright infringement, for linking to an external website, which we actually designed ourselves and own the rights. We cant understand why you deleted this, particularly as it was quite extensive with research and references. Any response and perhaps a restoration would be welcome.