User talk:Allformweek

I will agree that feminist archeology is pretty bad. I'm kind of curious why I got a notice, though. Zazaban (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Feminist archaeology, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cnilep (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allformweek. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of MEOW

The article MEOW has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a WP:NEO. The concept is valid, but I could find no evidence of anyone calling it this in Google web, books, or scholar.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

Thanks for your note. The bottom line is that we cannot ourselves say that a person has been "often accused" of something; we can only quote a reliable source that makes this claim. If, as you write, there are several sources which make the same claim, then you can note them. If any of the sources are themselves from notabvle people, this could also be noted. The one source that you cited was an essay by a non-notable PhD student; this is certainly not enough in itself to establish the assertion that Chomsky has been "often accused" of misquoting Skinner fifty years ago. RolandR (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Allformweek. Is there any editing being done or planned to the Linguistics article on Wikipedia now? Fellowscientist (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

No problem, Allformweek. Is there any editing being done or planned to the Linguistics article on Wikipedia now? Fellowscientist (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Title at anthroponomy

There's some thing I'd like to show you. The title should be anthroponomastics, not anthroponomy, and these two are NOT replaceable.

Anthroponomy and anthroponomastics are two different things; they're completely, completely different. Anthroponomy is the "science dealing with the laws regulating the development of the human organism in relation to other organisms and to environment" according to dictionary.com as well as the rest of its google search results. Anthroponomastics on the other hand is, in fact, the study of personal names or human names. This is a branch of onomastics, which is a study of all kinds of names and is also connected onomasiology, a sub-branch of semantics.

If you're interested in helping, please do help get this changed. It's wrong and misleading. Will be great help. I also suggest adding this along with the semantics section to linguistics later. Cheers Fellowscientist (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Allformweek Fellowscientist (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aramark

I had some questions about why there was a reversal to the changes that were made to the Aramark entry - the changes were all detailed on the discussion page and all references were objective sources. Most of the things that were done included updating and correcting information. Specifically, I changed ARAMARK Limited to ARAMARK, because the former is just a subsidiary. In addition, I updated the financials from 2005 to 2009 (the most recent available), but you’ve revised the entry so that the figures are once again 2005. Let me know what your thoughts are about this and I'll try to clarify things better as I try to update and bring this entry more current. Thanks. Bmarks13 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to get more information on the reversal of the ARAMARK Recognition section of the entry on 10/19. I only used awards other companies mentioned in their Wikipedia entries. Not trying to get one over on anyone here and want to work with you to make sure the proper stuff is up there. I respect your opinion here. If there's anything that could be salvaged out of what I had put up there, please let me know. I know the Jefferson Foundation Award mention was sourced to a news story. Thanks! Bmarks13 (talk) 9:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cecil Augusta

The article Cecil Augusta has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics

What happened to our plans on adding stuff about semantics? Any progress there? ''FellowScientist'' (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Semantics comes mainly from work I've done in Philosophy and Math, so I'm hesitant to touch that part of the general Linguistics article.Allformweek (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Allformweek. You have new messages at Talk:Language education.
Message added 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Allformweek, and thanks for helping out at language education. I noticed you removed some of the summary, and I wrote a comment about it for you on the article talk page. Could you take a look at it? — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Portner Modality Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Portner Modality Cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]