User talk:Languagehat

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! -- Runcorn 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of James Fitzgerald Duff and pasted it into James Fitzjames Duff. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, sorry, I guess I didn't look at the content close enough. Carry on! --Closedmouth (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Saltik

Hi, Languagehat, and welcome. I began editing here for similar reasons. I found articles on some rather obscure topics in which I was interested and, failing to find articles on others, felt that I could add something. The scholar, F. W. Hasluck whom you site at Sari Saltik, has also been one of my abiding interests. His book Christianity and Islam under the Sultans is old-fashioned and speculative, to be sure, but filled with interesting information. Thank you for getting the article on Sari Saltik started. You stole no thunder. I will circle back around in time and add what I can. Please let me know if I can be of help. The learning curve for newcomers, as I know from my own experience, can be steep. You seem to be off to a good start. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to sound patronizing. Since March of 2006 is not so new. How about: I am happy to make your acquaintance. Aramgar (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Schutz American School, Alexandria

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Schutz American School, Alexandria, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Schutz American School, Alexandria is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Schutz American School, Alexandria, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/19 DYK

On 19 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad al-Shaybani, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Annette Laming-Emperaire

Hi. I've nominated Annette Laming-Emperaire, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 28, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUSSIA roll call and your input required

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:

# {{User|YOURUSERNAME}}

to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom

Hi. I've nominated Mariya Petrovykh, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mariya Petrovykh

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mariya Petrovykh, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalsea

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't revert to your edit just yet. I'm currently trying to get the page to FA standard, so it needs to be accurate, and I'd like a chance to look carefully at both sources. Also, the way your addition was written made it flow badly with the rest of the text. I think you're taking it word for word from the source. Do you have a link to your source material? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs for my edit, and I also found this, which suggests we both may be right. It's just a question of working out how to word it now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do of course recognize your expertise, and freely acknowledge I have none in that area, so your help is very much appreciated. I just wonder whether both our descriptions are correct in some way. I've posted a query on the article talk page, so perhaps someone else will weigh in with additional material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delmore Schwartz

I think my change cleans up your sentence. Your sentence is in the passive, and I changed it to the active. I don't think that I changed the meaning of your addition in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcohen (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Welcome! It's a pleasure to see your knowledgeable contributions to the encyclopedia. Please note that edits like this one are anything but "minor" according to the operative definition. By not marking them minor, you will help other editors keep up with the progress of the articles you edit and will avoid misunderstandings (e.g. that you have tried to sneak in a substantive change under false cover). Your good faith is abundantly plain to me, as I hope would have been obvious without my saying so. Wareh (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarrassing. All along I've been thinking it's good to mark things "minor" so people won't think I've rewritten the article; now I discover you're only supposed to use "minor" for things like correcting misspellings that nobody could possibly object to! I thank you for the heads-up, and I will be checking that box a lot less often from now on. (In fact, I'll probably go overboard in the other direction and get an irritated note from someone telling me I should have marked my change as "minor"...) Languagehat (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it was needless modesty! No problem. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Wareh (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languagehat, I'd say the acting definition of a "minor edit" on Wikipedia these days is almost the opposite of your intuition: many editors have a rapid-fire editing style, and they certainly aren't marking their incremental, non-content-oriented changes as minor. I come by way of your edit to The Cantos, which hit my watchlist. I recognize your name from MetaFilter, which I once read (without an account). In fact, my first contribution to Wikipedia was inspired by a MetaFilter thread (and, looking at that thread, linked to in the article, it seems you participated in it! Small world). So hello/regards, Outriggr (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last warning: adding new content to an article [1] is not equal to "minor edit". :-) (An article I also created, incidentally.) Outriggr (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It was the edit after that one that you marked as minor. You've got it right! Outriggr (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it was my little joke. It was supposed to be a sardonic take on the "template warnings" applied to users who gone 'n did something bad. Outriggr (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free in the future to slap this on my talk page!

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
Your continued joking is disruptive and considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia the next time you do so.

Outriggr (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Bao for DYK?

Hi. I've nominated Shen Bao, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. PFHLai (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox at Stater

Ha! I see you've been reading Travelling Heroes too. What a splendid book. I've begun working the soundest ideas from it into Wikipedia, with references to render them foolproof hopefully, and I saw you'd preempted me at Stater! Many hands make light work— ;) . --Wetman (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orikos

nice rewrite. do you know when it "became connected to the mainland", roughly? 87.202.31.72 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't; Hansen and Nielsen say "already in Antiquity," and that's the best I could find. I'm curious about it too. Glad you like the rewrite! --Languagehat (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and humility

A little humility is indeed a good thing... and as you correctly noticed, I am not a native speaker. Which is precisely why a couple years ago I was wise enough to seek advice not of one, but several native speakers (some with linguistics degrees). Their advice varied, but in general they all agreed that both usages (with and without an article) are acceptable, and the usage without the article is slightly more acceptable. As per that recommendation, we do not use definite articles to refer to Russian districts in the English Wikipedia. Feel better now? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Scafell Pike

Hi - thanks for adding the pronunciation of Scafell Pike - am I right that the first syllable is stressed (/ˈskɔːfɛl/)? Lfh (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, each syllable has equal stress (as in Pike's Peak); I've edited the article to reflect that. --Languagehat (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - thanks. Would you agree with the pron information given at Sca Fell? Lfh (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal acquaintance with the place; I can only rely on printed authorities, and to me, the fact that the two most authoritative books on the subject I know, the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British Names and Everyman's English Pronouncing Dictionary (by the great phonetician Daniel Jones), agree that both syllables are equally stressed trumps the travel guide given as a reference in the article you link to. To answer you in a word, no. --Languagehat (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the area either. Currently we have /'skɔː'fɛl/ for the pike and /'skɔːfəl/ for Sca Fell itself, which are clearly different pronunciations, but perhaps they are meant to be different. This will have to await input from someone who knows the area. In the meantime, I note that there is an article for Jones at Daniel Jones (phonetician), so I'll link that to both articles. Cheers, Lfh (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Latour

Hi. I deleted your last entry in Bruno Latour. It's explained in talk. I mean that your example should be in the article, but you should use the criticism from the source more directly to avoid WP:Synth (if that policy still exists). Cheers. pertn (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Check the talk page. I think you think we disagree more than we actually do. pertn (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterating titles

No, you are not wrong. However, as per Wikipedia:REF#Non-English sources, the source title should be in the language of the original, which you can follow by a translation (which is something I neglected to do myself). Transliteration is not nearly as useful here as the words still remain foreign and unfamiliar :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 17:05 (UTC)

Brazilian Conservative Party

Although I must thank you (and a lot) for creating the article about the Brazilian Conservative party, its history and creatin as it is explained is not correct. I would like to request you, if possible, to correct that. If you read the article Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná you will find the evolution of the COnservative Party from its beginning and with reliable sources.

During Pedro I's reign there was a political party that opposed him known as "Liberal Party", or "Federalist Liberal Party", sometimes called "Brazilian Party". In 1831, once the emperor abdicated, the "Liberal Party" split in two: the "Moderate Party" and the "Radical Party". The Moderate Party iself was composed of two factions: the Coimbra bloc (because many of its members had studied in Coimbra) and the Nativists. Around 1834, after the Nativists tried a coup to create a dictatorship, the Coimbra bloc departed from the Moderate Party and joined with some of the former members of the restorationist party to create what would be called in 1842 the "Party of Order". By 1848 it had been known simply as "Conservative Party".

The Nativists would join, at the end of the 1830s, with the Radicals and also many former Restorationists (including their leaders, the Andrada brothers) and create the (second) Liberal Party. However, after the failed rebellions of 1842 and 1848, the Liberal Party disappeared. Many of its members would join the Conservative Party after 1853 during the "conciliation". However, by the end of the 1850s a dissident faction inside the Conservative Party appeared. At the begining of the 1860s it allied with the former members of the (second) Liberal party that did not join the Conservative party in the 1850s to create the "Progressist Party". In 1868 the Progressit Party changed its name to (third) "Liberal Party" and lived on until 1889.

So, both parties, Conservative and Liberal, shared the same root: the first Liberal Party of the 1820s. Read the article, you will understand it better. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it once I have some time, then. Thank you very much, anyway. Any help is great, and did that by creating the article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toye

Feel free to write an article. I had no idea you were interested in doing so, and I felt it unlikely that anyone would do so soon. Nevertheless, there is no great reason to redlink the name. Sorry you're all upset about something. Please be WP:CIVIL. The accusations you made against me are entirely uncalled for; you apparently did not bother to check my record of contributions to this encyclopedia before denigrating them, and I certainly could not be called a deletionist. Feel free to apologize whenever you have time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanov

Thanks for the note, but please don't base your decisions on "wikiseniority" or other some such concept—I have no more "seniority" than you or any other editor does (although I probably have more experience with romanization issues than many other editors out there).

Regarding Ivanov, you are welcome to revert this change. This article was just one of several which happened to be a part of my maintenance/cleanup/assessment daily run. When I consider moving an article, I base the decision largely on the sources already present in the article. If there are no sources (or if the sources used do not make it clear which romanization variant is preferable), I move the article in accordance with the default provision of WP:RUS ([i]n absence of verifiable documentation, romanization produced by the default guideline must be used). This, of course, does not mean that the move cannot be undone; on the contrary, should new sources surface (like the OKNO link you provided), the article needs to be moved accordingly.

The very purpose of WP:RUS "default provision" is to have a standard which can be followed in situations when the "conventional name" cannot easily be established. This way, we have a predictable standardization method which can be used until experts in the subject matter (like, in this case, you) can clarify the situation.

On future occasions, should you encounter a similar move with which I am involved, please do not hesitate to move the article back (or to wherever it belongs) and document the move by adding sources or by noting the reasoning on the article's talk page. There's no need to "ask for my permission" (so to speak), or even to notify me, but if you have doubts and could use a clarification, I, of course, will be happy to chime in. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 19:56 (UTC)

No problem. I just like to straighten things out as I stumble upon them, is all. That occasionally means some hassle (like moving articles back and forth), but I think in the long run it's well worth it. Thanks for creating content, by the way—I wish more of those "divinely authorized" editors tried it every once in a while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 20:35 (UTC)

P.S. I have moved the article—the mess is all my fault anyway, so it's only fair I fix it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 20:35 (UTC)

Pyotr Kapitsa

Hi, Languagehat. May I ask you about this edit?

There was a 12-day gap in the calendars in the 19th century; it increased to 13 days only in March 1900. So, 26 June 1894 Julian does not correspond to 9 July 1904 Gregorian, because that gap is 13 days. We know his birth date is 9 July, but I've always been unsure whether this was a Gregorian date (= 27 June, Julian), or a Julian date (= 21 July, Gregorian). You seem to believe it was a Gregorian date. What lead you to form that conclusion? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the Russian Wikipedia page. Languagehat (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've continued this discussion at Talk:Pyotr Kapitsa#Kapitsa's true date of birth. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Smith

Fixed. Pepso2 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Kazanlak

It's very simple: these are not "common alternate names", they're largely redundant transliterations, so I'd rather we don't present them as too important for the reader. You can make them bold if you like, but I think it would be better if they're not presented in the format

X or X¹ or X² or X³

At least that's how I normally work with Bulgarian Cyrillic transliterations. If you had to apply the same change to, say, Boychinovtsi, would you still do it the same way?

Boychinovtsi or Boichinovtzi or Bojčinovci or Boitchinovtzi or Bojtschinowtzi or Bojchinovtzi or... well, with the variants in й, ч and ц transliteration there are probably a few dozen variants.

— Toдor Boжinov — 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example is Bozhentsi. By the way, I don't think "I hope you will agree so that my change can be restored" is a good way to start a dispute. It's not very respectful to my personal opinion and makes my edit look like a nuisance to you rather than a hopeful contribution :) — Toдor Boжinov — 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I wasn't offended in the slightest, just wanted to bring your attention to it. Current version is cool. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rabkrin

nice work. i tweaked. Decora (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Weeds

Uhm. Not sure why you changed the reading to ukigusa? Changing it back to the correct, but leaving a note to make sure it is clear I am open to a discussion if you need it to be (incorrectly, I honestly believe) ukigusa for some reason. In any case, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taqi Rafat

I did some cleanup and merged info from the duplicate article Mirza Taqikhan Raf'at Tabrizi. I also tidied up some references and the citation style. One of the things I could not resolve was the reference to "Asian and African Studies". I Googled the term which brought up the journal, but I could not reconcile the issue number and page number in the WP article with the relevant journal article. I therefore removed the reference. Do you still have access to it and could you provide a more complete reference for the info (article title, author, date etc.)? If possible I would like to get a copy of it in order to help flesh out the artcle as well. Regards. Zunaid 09:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-Creation of phony articles by Israeli Wiki-Propagandists

Your assistance is requested in reverting and deleting a huge number of phony articles being created by Israeli-Wiki propagandists. I noticed you comment on the Kahrizak Detention Center which is one of thousands of articles being spammed with pro-Isreali Wiki-Propagandists, so I thought you might have enough general knowledge on this problem to be of assistance.

The phony articles are part of a long series of articles being created/tainted by Israeli Wiki-Propagandists who are being trained to flood Wikipedia with anti-Iran propaganda in order to carry out another War Agenda. This situation is out of control as there are Wikipedia Admins now involved in this propaganda who are locking user accounts of anyone and everyone that questions the so called "facts" being presented in these propaganda articles. Immediate action is needed as this situation has already spiraled out of control by the sheer number of propaganda vandalism being carried out by these people.

This user is teamed with "AFriedman" whom among others in this gang (including another Israeli propagandist named "Alefbe") has numerous sockpuppets. USER: Cordelia Vorkosigan appears to be a cover ACCOUNT for USER: CordeliaNaismith. Any pro-Israeli propaganda being spread by this user in Wikipedia should be taken in that context.Cardovus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Mozhaysk

The "i" spelling is what you would most commonly see in publications dealing with history, while the "y" would be more common in geographical publications. Since Mozhaysk's history is quite rich, it's no wonder you'd be seeing the "i" spelling often. That, however, does not change the fact that our article is first and foremost about a geographical entity, which is covered by WP:RUS (which is a community-accepted guideline based on the industry standards, not some "arcane rule"—did someone mention "insultingly dismissive"? :))

I have nothing against including common alternative spelling in the article, but I don't believe they belong in the lead (and in the first line, of all places). Plus, with a redirect in place, what exactly is the loss?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2011; 22:36 (UTC)

Webster's geographical dictionary is just one specialized dictionary with its own set of rules and guidelines, which in this case does not match ours. It is a useful resource, but not the ultimate answer to life, universe, and naming of geographic entities in Wikipedia. What WP:RUS is referring to is the general English dictionaries, those which only include places the names of which have unmistakeably indisputable spellings (think Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev...). Names of other places are romanized using the BGN/PCGN conventions, which have been developed specifically for this task, target specifically the Anglophones, and enjoy a widespread adoption.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2011; 22:52 (UTC)

Will this work for you? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 4, 2011; 14:11 (UTC)

Hello, Languagehat. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

"Карэ-Плуже"

I'm not that much into geography of places outside of Russia, nor am I an active editor in the Russian Wikipedia, but you are 100% correct—the name used was simply plain wrong. I have moved the article. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2011; 13:49 (UTC)

When it's something as simple as this, I'll be happy to help. If it's a bit more involved, you can probably leave a message at the talk page (and I'll be happy to help with that, if you need help—I don't know how comfortable you are with leaving messages in Russian :)). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2011; 16:18 (UTC)

Khrushchev

Hi, thanks for the edit and I look forward with interest to seeing the Industrial Academy article. I massaged the bit about K's superior because I don't know of a basis to doubt that K arranged it. What I did was inline cited to Taubman, K's biographer, so people familiar with Wiki will realize that doubt is being expressed. Is it from the same sources as you are drawing the Industrial Academy article? K is one of my favorite FAs, so I keep close tabs on it! I did go to his grave when I visited Moscow 2 years ago. Best wishes,--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. I think it's overstating it to say that the ouster "according to Taubman, was due to Khrushchev's instigation"; what Taubman says is that K. "helped arrange" it, and the whole passage is full of "must have" and "may have," which makes me think that Taubman is imposing his own interpretation. It's certainly plausible and even likely that K. was involved, but (as you're obviously aware) it's hard to pin anything down during that period. Was Kirov killed at Stalin's orders? Conquest is sure of it; others take what in my opinion is a more honest approach and say Kirov's death was certainly convenient for Stalin and he would have had no hesitation about killing a friend if he thought it would help him, but there is no direct evidence and we will probably never know for sure. In any event, the new wording is an improvement on the original, and I have no objection to it. The Industrial Academy article won't be fancy, but hopefully it will fill the gap! Languagehat (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nisaea (genus): Thanks

Thanks for the edit to change Nisaea to Nisaea (genus). If it were not for that edit, there would have been some issue down the line, namely a nymph with a species taxobox...--Squidonius (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party (Brazil)

Hi, Languagehat. I noticed that you were the creator of the Conservative Party (Brazil) article. Out of curiosity: why? Do you have any interest in this time period of Brazil history? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizaveta Polonskaya article

Hey Languagehat! Nice job on the Elizaveta Polonskaya article. I added some headings and an infobox. Or I should say that I took a stab at adding headings and an infobox. You should probably double-check it all to make sure it's accurate and well-placed. Articles are not required to have infoboxes but headings definitely make things easier to read (by breaking up the text). Anyway, make whatever adjustments you see fit. SQGibbon (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Elizaveta Polonskaya

On 10 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizaveta Polonskaya, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that writer Elizaveta Polonskaya was the only female member of the Serapion Brothers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizaveta Polonskaya.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Languagehat! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Nomination of Boola Boola for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boola Boola is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boola Boola until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PG Pirate 23:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bals des victimes

Hi. I'm trying to add to the wiki page on this and see you've commented sceptically in the past. I too am a doubter, but found a reference in The Times newspaper of July 29 1797 referring to an alleged "Victims Ball" being held in Paris. It's contemporary but the report seems very frivolous in tone:

"Great dissentions having taken place respecting etiquette and precedency, in the Victims Ball at Paris, it has been determined that the Guillotine should have the first rank, and open the Ball; the fusillade and the grape-shot come next in succession; the private murders form Cotillions a part(sic). Lineal descent precedes collaterals; and orphans take the right hand of widows. To prevent quarrels, a table of Horrors is suspended in the room, like the rules of Billiards; and the Master of Ceremonies is enabled to finish and adjust all doubts and difficulties, being the most experience Executioner in the Republic."(The Times (London, England), Saturday, Jul 29, 1797; pg. 3; Issue 3959. Category: Court and Social)

This suggests either the whole Victims Ball thing was a joke, or just possibly there had been some such event, perhaps a one-off, which the papers and the rumour mill got hold of and immediately embellished. Have you seen any comments to this effect? RLamb (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's all a joke, but it nags at me. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in this kind of thing. I once read a similar Times piece from 1787, about a navy captain astonished to find his wife had given birth to a mixed-race child. He was apparently trying to keep the matter out of the papers because - wait for it - because there'd been "too much black and white in the matter already". I'd have put money the whole piece was made up purely to allow the hack to trot out his sorry punchline, but no - there truly was a naval captain accusing his wife of making advances to their black servant, and she had recently had a baby, though it was not mixed race.

I found this article because my local library gives us free access to the Times archives. I'm so addicted to browsing I'm thinking of suing the council.

But I don't think I'm equipped to tackle Russian urban legends. I've struggled enough with "Handfasting" and "Jumping the broom".RLamb (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference I really like. It's in a memoir published by Laure Junot, duchesse d'Abrantès (1784-1838), Histoire des salons de Paris (c. 1837). [2]

She describes an incident at l'hotel Richelieu in 1795, where public dancing had just been re-commenced. Two widows ("nameless, because they're still alive"),friends who hadn't met since 1791, ran into each other there. One had fled abroad at the start of the Terror but her husband had decided to stay in Paris and been executed: the other's husband had died at Quiberon. The first had her 13-year-old daughter with her, the other her 15-year-old son.

As the orchestra struck up a young man came over and asked the girl ("call her Adele") to dance. She looked to her mother for permission. "Oh sorry, she's engaged," lied the mother. Then she asked her friend to let her son dance with Adele, which he did. "Do you know why I got those two to dance together?" "Well - because they make such an attractive pair?" suggested her friend. "No. It’s because both their fathers died for the King. I think any young girl orphaned by these barbarians should only dance with the son of another martyr.” “What a wonderful idea!” cried her friend...and away they went around the room telling everyone and, allegedly, the idea took hold. By the next ball, the “contredanse des victimes” was an established feature and people were striving to be included.

It's got dates, locales, a psychologically-sound motive in the attempt to re-establish former social exclusivity, and a total lack of weird costumes or funny nods. What's not to like?RLamb (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Username policy

hey, has anyone ever queried about Wikipedia:Username policy and the extremely well-known (well, amongst all us'ns) languagehat.com? Specifically, is there a need to verify your identity? – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; on my user page I say "My blog, also called Languagehat, is at http://languagehat.com." I'm pretty sure if I were an impostor, the real Languagehat would have showed up to put matters right. But thanks for the kind words! Languagehat (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- meh, I'm not an admin. I think you should verify your identity. since there is the real possibility that if you are not LH, then the real LH would decline to respond because "meh". But crap. If no admins wanna ask you to do it, then.... that's their call. Meh again. Happy editing. – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username Discussion

Hello, Languagehat. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC) – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're getting out of this nonsense, but please stop it. Languagehat (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you misunderstand me. I'm not getting anything at all out of this. I was doing my duty by attempting to protect the owner of that blog from impersonators. I honestly think you should verify your identity... BUT... Second, since I have put in some text over at that page, I have now completely finished doing my duty. Whatever they say is the answer will in fact be the answer. Actually, I'm sure nothing will happen over at the username page, and that may even be the correct response, but either way, I won't edit that page or this one again in the context of your username... I will not even look at that page... So good luck in all you do. Sincerely – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Languagehat. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. StarM 01:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not speedy as it's more than a month since the last comment. Here's your official notice that your name is fine. Not watching here so ping me on my Talk with any questions StarM 01:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doin' the Czech Polka and a bunch of other stuff

Howdy, Steve. I'll watch Polka but I don't anticipate a problem. Staszek Lem is likely Polish; the second entry on his talk page is an invitation to Project Poland. We'll assume good faith and that he (or she?) will see the light and let your correct edit stand. If not, I'll open a discussion on the Polka talk page. I checked Dictionary.com which proves your edit correct. Try to hold off on "explaining somewhat testily" for the first revert. When you're right, you're right and will gain consensus in the talk page.

Hello! Languagehat, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an great place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

I hang out at the Teahouse a lot and it's a good place to get answers quickly.

With your language skills, I hope you'll add some Babel userboxes to your user page. It would help many of us when we need a hand.

Take care, DocTree (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Polka#Etymology of the word Polka

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Polka#Etymology of the word ''Polka''. Where did the word polka come from? DocTree (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have my talk at Doctree's talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imperial Guard (Russia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life Guards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oorlam people

Hi Languagehat, I reverted your addition to the Oorlam people article because the quote you used was far too long to be acceptable under the fair use guidelines, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Brief quotations are always possible, but you copied over somewhat 20 lines of the original text. Please be more careful next time. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I also reverted your addition to Kavango Region. While the river after which it is named has a number of names, depending on the language in which it is being referred to, the Region itself is a proper name, and there is no such thing as "Okavango Region". Names of Regions are determined by Namibia's Delimitation Commission, there is only one way to spell them. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kuntillet Ajrud

Rule No. 1: be polite. (Wikipedia attracts people with social skills problems, so politeness is often a problem).

Next, it's not at all the rule that foreign names are given in foreign alphabets. In fact it serves no purpose and is discouraged, since most of our readers don't find the Arabic alphabet terrible approachable. (I do, I speak and read it, but I'm an exception).

Good luck, hope you find lots of friends in real life :) PiCo (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stress in Russian

Good morning, Steve! There is currently a discussion going on at WT:RUSSIA#Using accent marks to indicate stress about possibly removing stress marks from all Russian words in the English Wikipedia. Now, I don't normally make rounds soliciting other people's opinions in this kind of situations, but since you are the only professional linguist I know who is actively contributing to Wikipedia and has a good knowledge of Russian, I believe your opinion would be invaluable there. If you could spare a moment and participate, it will be greatly appreciated. If not, that's fine, too. Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2013; 15:14 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachmaninov articles and Polonsky

Greetings! I see that you speak Russian. I do not speak a lick of it. Could you possibly translate these articles to English?

Also, would you be so kind as to help me out with the translation of the Russian equivalent of this page that I just created on the English Wikipedia?: Polonsky. I would like to know the origin and meaning of the name as it appears to be explained in the paragraphs at the top of the page. Thanks a lot!Hoops gza (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo Station derailed

Editor Betty Logan has reverted my page move, so I've had to go through a formal page move request at the article's talk page. You might want to comment there. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I've added my two cents. Languagehat (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stress marks on Russian names

Hi Steve, have you seen this? Cheers, Azylber (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't, so thanks. I think in general it's a promising idea, but I'm worried about the details of implementation. There are a lot of Russian surnames with more than one possible stress, and some in which every syllable of the name can be stressed (e.g., Бабенков). It would be far better for such names to be left unmarked until/unless someone comes along who actually knows (and hopefully can reference) how that particular name was pronounced by the person in question than for a bot to add whatever stress it has in its database and risk providing false information. A notorious example of ambiguous stress is the second most common surname, Иванов; I am concerned that the list on this page says Ива́нов is "rare but valid; could be a Bulgarian last name or some such." Bulgarian?! Ива́нов was a quite common stress until recently, as a look at any Russian biographical dictionary (e.g., the Всемирный биографический энциклопедический словарь) will confirm; cf., for example, Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov). Should I put this response on the page you link to, or is there a separate discussion page? Languagehat (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. First of all, let me address your concern about ambiguity, as I think it's a very important point. In the cases where more than one position is deemed valid, the bot doesn't change anything, so rest asured that that won't cause any problems. We've gone through all the "dangerous" examples manually - you can imagine how much work it was, it took the 3 of us (Ezhiki, Ymblanter and me) nearly 4 months!

So I am confident that the bot won't cause any such problems.

The current situation has nothing to do with this, unfortunately. The current situation is that the member of the bot approval group who's looked at our application is saying he hasn't seen proof that there is consensus that adding stress marks to all 37,000 articles that use the lang-ru template would be useful. So we're going to need to open another thread on WP:Russia asking that specific question. I'll let you know when we start that thread, so you can support or oppose.

Thanks again for your help! Azylber (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK then, you've answered my main concern. Yes, please let me know when the thread opens, so I can weigh in. Languagehat (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Joseph Wood Krutch's name

you added information for the pronunciation of Krutch's name (though this was almost ten years ago), the transcription you gave is ambiguous. I read your blog and was actually quite surprised to find you had made such an error! perhaps it was while you were only beginning to learn about linguistics. I assume you meant for the vowel to be /u/, not /ʊ/ as 'oo' suggests, or /ʌ/ as it looks like it should be. Do you have a source for this pronunciation? Telmac (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I got a master's degree in linguistics in 1977, so no, I was not "only beginning to learn about linguistics." Furthermore, I did not make an "error"; perhaps you are not familiar with Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key, where "oo" is defined as /uː/ (example word "food"). If you would prefer IPA, you are welcome to add it. It is easy to find sources for the pronunciation of this famous man's name; one that happens to be at hand is Webster's New Biographical Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 1988), p. 571; they give the pronunciation in their own style as "/'krüch/," but it is equivalent to my respelling. Hope this helps. Languagehat (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Free Jazz" question

My dear Languagehat,

I'm putting my reply to your question here to make sure that you see it.

What I actually did was move the Down Beat rating above the AllMusic score. There's far too much reliance on AllMusic here on Wikipedia and since Down Beat magazine is a very respected publication that has been around since the 1930s I wanted to emphasize its rating. Furthermore, the Down Beat review is mentioned in the "Reception" section with a link to reviewer Pete Welding and I moved it up too.

These ratings can be reordered by renumbering and quite often an editor will use a duplicate number and in essence void another rating. I've encountered this problem many times so I'm constantly checking and tweaking certain articles.

Feel free to renumber the ratings if you wish, but please leave Down Beat as number one. JaneOlds (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voronezh

Hi, Steve! If you have a moment, would you mind looking at this addition, please? I have a feeling this is all a bunch of baloney, but I'd rather have someone actually qualified to make that call :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 4, 2015; 15:20 (UTC)

...

Well, I was kind of hoping that you might point this out (on the article's talk page). Your judgement on this matter carries a lot more weight than mine, and I could then invoke my administrative superpowers to keep this nonsense out of the article forever. At any rate, I appreciate the quick reply; thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 5, 2015; 15:55 (UTC)

...

Thanks again; much obliged!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 5, 2015; 16:08 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but could you please look at Talk:Voronezh#Name and early history one more time? The IP editor posted a follow-up comment the merits of which I am not qualified to assess. (I'm posting here since I'm not sure whether you are watching that page or not). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 9, 2015; 14:53 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it's always a pleasure to hear from you! I've added another comment, but I don't expect it to do much good. Frankly, I've gotten pretty much burned out on doing anything with Wikipedia but minor and (hopefully) unobjectionable corrections; there are just too many editors who are too invested in "their" articles and are unwilling to listen to anyone else. A few years ago I tried to edit the history of some London club with some interesting information I'd found in a scholarly source, and my change was reverted by an editor whose only argument was that the club knew its own history and if they said X was true, it must be true. How can you discuss things with someone like that? At any rate, feel free to enlist my aid when you feel it might be useful. Languagehat (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate your comments and especially the offer to help out in the future (and will definitely be making use of it :)). I also understand full well your unwillingness to jump into a boiling cauldron, but hopefully here the situation isn't that bad. I do very much like your point that regardless of the merits of this particular hypothesis, it doesn't really belong in a broad article about the city. I'll try working that angle; thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 9, 2015; 15:56 (UTC)

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Languagehat. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dagestan Uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shamil. 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) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dionysus in 69

Hello. To answer an old query of yours, as near as I can tell, there shouldn't be an apostrophe in either the play title or the film title for Schechner's Dionysus in 69. I left a fuller explanation on the talk page. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New mail

Hello, Languagehat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Дитмар (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Languagehat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Languagehat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Razvedupr" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Razvedupr has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Razvedupr until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]