User talk:FreeMorpheme

NASA Cheer

Can you explain what this is? (per your article on The American Crowd.)--Theloniouszen 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the NASA Cheer. This appears primarily in space films, obviously. NASA mission control in Houston is frequently depicted as banks and banks of consoles in front of huge screens with men in glasses and short sleeves working hard at their desks, sweating profusely and manipulating slide rules with vigour. When the astronaut heroes are brought safely home, every man-jack of them will erupt in a huge cheer, admid much back slapping and lighting of cigars, (cut with shot of wife and children weeping at home/in the family room). Perhaps this happens in real life, however I'd say it appears often enough and with enough predictability to be labelled a film cliché. Hope this helps. FreeMorpheme

Yup, thanks!--Theloniouszen 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is for real. Just watch NASA channel. They don't only cheer when people come back to Earth, they cheer for space rocks. "WE GOT THE PHOTO OF THE ROCK! YAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!" Everyone jumps up applauding.

Apostrophe problem

Hi FreeMorpheme. OK, let's look at your problem cases:

   * This accounts for 50% of all soft drinks volume.
   * They remain important as drinks producers.
   * This accounts for all carbonates consumption.

Let me say first that having the phrases embedded in whole sentences really does help to make things clear. I would put no apostrophe in any of these. Let's analyse the last one. The thought could have been rendered like this:

   * This accounts for all consumption of carbonates.

That would equally capture the meaning, yes? So it looks as if the following transformation is legitimate:

consumption of carbonates → carbonates' consumption

We have the following kind of transformation as a model, after all:

intervention of the governments → the governments' intervention

But no! We simply do not make the first transformation. Instead, as I have indicated, carbonates is taken as a simple premodifier without an apostrophe. Consider: if it needed an apostrophe, so would a singular modifier (carbonate) also need an apostrophe. But we don't give it one, do we? We would say:

   * This accounts for all carbonate consumption.

How could this ever be justified (which it certainly is, as much more standard than the versions with plurals are), if some forms ever do get apostrophes? They don't!

I hope this helps. Noetica 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Valentini

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Claude Valentini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Claude Valentini. Willirennen (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipaedia Campaign

Now then mate, would you like to join a "English English" Wiki split campaign? I've been on WP for years, and tried in vain years ago to do it. I've since observed a lot of Brits share the antipathy towards Americanese on WP. What I noted was that other languages, like Norwegian (Nynorsk & Bokmal) have two WPs; as do others (Dutch, Flemish, Afrikaans...) so there is plenty of precedent. How would you feel about forming a "user group" to actively campaign for the split? The main focus to begin with would be to spread the word and recruit as many people as possible: a few hundred users should have some weight. What do you think?

"I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 15:13, 28 October 2008 (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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FreeMorpheme. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User category proposed deletion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Category:Wikipedians who know where their towel is. It is proposed to delete this category. SpinningSpark 16:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]