User talk:LjL/Archive 1

Lord's Prayer in Greek

Thanks for your comments in this discussion. I don't respond in kind to Chronographos' ad hominem remarks not because I don't find them insulting, and not because I don't find them nasty, but because I trust that anyone else reading them will recognize that they reflect badly on him. I also acknowledge that my knowledge (of Greek and for that matter of everything else) is not perfect, and I am open to correction and discussion. You will note that Chronographos and Theathenae have said very little of substance. I will return to the discussion in a day or so, hoping that it has cooled off a bit. And I will stay focussed on substantive issues. --Macrakis 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't contributed much, either. I mostly like to quibble on semantics, as you might have seen... however, I can hardly stay silent when I read gratuituous insults -- both because I feel offended as well, since I also often talk about thing I'm not an expert about (and I expect people to respect my opinions and correct them if they're wrong, as long as I behave in a respectful manner), and because Wikipedia would become a complete mess if everyone acted like Chrono did.

Yes, you're perfectly right that anyone reasonable would realize that he's been unduly rude, even if I didn't hasten to point it out to them. But again, I can hardly keep my mouth shut at times.

A little joke-ini!

An anecdote (se non e' vero, e' ben trovato): someone once told Federico Fellini "Maestro, with all due respect I think that film directors whose names end in -ini are the worst!" and he replied "Oh, do you mean Viscontini?" :-)) Chronographos 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Audio formats

Hi - I noticed that a while ago on the Spoken Wikipedia talk page you mentioned that "The MP3 format has already been turned down on Wikipedia." Since it is being discussed again here, I'm hoping that you can point out where the decision regarding the general use of MP3 on Wikipedia is. Thanks! -SCEhardT 23:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Debate re exec.library as a microkernel

Hi. Thanks for correcting my edit to AmigaOS. Your edit summary said "There is much debate wrt exec.library being a microkernel". I wasn't aware of that. Are there any good URLs for this debate? Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking for Usenet threads, mostly, which don't usually count as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia -- on the other hand, who said that it is a microkernel? That's the fact that should be proved.

Don't mistake this as confrontational attitude: I personally believe that AmigaOS has many of the features that traditionally define a microkernel, but I'm aware that both the definition and the status of AmigaOS are somewhat vague.

An important question is, in my opinion, "where does a kernel end?". Many consider a kernel to be the part of an OS that runs in kernel space (duh... let's say, that runs in supervisor mode). The structure of AmigaOS however, with lack of memory protection and all, makes it hard to draw a line here.

Perhaps in these cases we should simply drop the debate about what category a given OS fits best, and just adopt a more descriptive approach: for example, exec.library/AmigaOS can probably be safely said to be a message passing based system, which while different a different concept from a microkernel, is often taken as an notable feature of many microkernels AFAIK, and is possibly less troublesome to pinpoint.

LjL 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't express myself clearly enough. I'm not challenging your edit; I prefer it to the previous wording (which I wrote).

I also agree with everything you've written here. Yes, every microkernel I've come across used message passing, presumably because that's the easiest way to communicate across address spaces: you either copy a bunch of "flat" bytes, or you set up some sort of capability system — see Extremely Reliable Operating System and E programming language (no relation to AmigaE). One of the many neat features of the L4 microkernel family is that larger messages can be passed without copying, by using shared memory.

Anyway, as I meant to say before I got carried away, I only asked out of curiosity. (Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall some usenet discussion on a comp.sys.amiga.* group about whether AmigaOS was a microkernel where the heat to light ratio was so high that I soon stopped reading.) I was hoping you might know of some insightful papers or articles on the topic. But looking through old usenet archives is not appealing, so consider the matter closed.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

re LARTs and clue-by-fours

The Jargon File at the bottom of the page documents them in full. - Saaber 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Amiga Virtual machine dispute resolving in private

My dear editor friends, we have a dispute to resolve.

It seems that we three only had taken care of this argument AVM. Other people prefer not commenting it.

This page has stated during Voting for Deletion it has not to be deleted but to be merged into 68k article.

It has been removed the Request for Undeletion, because infactAVM article it has been not decided for deletion.

But merging with 68K is a mistake and sure I can't merge the article into 68k. Else I will commit a false, and I don't want to.

Amiga Anywhere and ABOX have nothing in common with 68k code.

Just Amithlon while booting it starts an environment in which 68K code runs natively and ABOX has both built-in 68K code interpreter as long with PPC Amiga WarpUP interpreter (WarpUP is PPC Amiga executable fileformat for the Amiga classic subsystem running on CPU expansion card qith PPC 601 and 603e processor).

It seems to me that: Ljl he said that it could be started Amiga Anywhere article. He said there is no virtual machine that it could be considered Amiga Machine he also said I created a neologism.

I don't understood Mdwh position if he want article deleted at all, or just condsidered AVM as not correct at all and the arguments have to be dropped.

To both of you editors I remember that AVM is NOT a neologism. It is commonly used amongst amigans, but evidenceds I had bringing seems not convince you both.

But sure AVM is no a neologism. It is just a CATEGORY name which groups in a summary some brief informations about various objects with common characteristics.

The three existing Amiga VM (note that I just drop the fourth, Petunia, because has different characteristics which brings it into some sort of emulator like multi-purpose program) it is far more pratical that all three these arguments should have a common article which LISTS all the three virtual environments here in ONE article with AVM name.

It is just necessary because of reasons of logical order and search purposes by users of Wikipedia.

It could be that users searching for any kind of virtual machines want to access that data.

So there they can find just a summary of the three amiga VM. Else ifthey want refine their search only if they want to, by clicking on a single Virtual environment link and seek for its complete article.

(Example: it is just as Music ->Folk Music or Classical or Rock Music, then searching for Rock Music->Hard Rock.

At this point the user could refine the search in Hard Rock or decide other choices.

With AVM article existing the user could make these choices: Computer->Amiga->AVM->Amiga Anywhere or Computer->Virtual Machine->Amiga Virtual Machine, etc.)

This is my point of view. I will send a copy of it to both of you to define this dispute.

If we could find an agreement as Wikipedia advices as a first step of dispute resolving, then it will be fine to me.

If not, then sure we three had had follow all the steps for a friendly resolution and in the end I could start a Request for Comment, as long it has been decided this article could not be undeleted, just because the fact it has never been deleted.

Sincerely,--Raffaele Megabyte 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alveolar Trilled R

Hi, could you help me with the "rolling R"? I cannot speak it.--Julius-r 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Italian language

I read that you are from Milan. So you should know, then, that the Italian ISTAT has informed that the Italian population has reached the 60 million mark last month. That is why I have erased the "about". And to tell the truth I should have written "about 62 million" because there are in Italy nearly 2 million illegal immigrants to add to that number. But we are dealing with "mother tongue" and I am going to accept your opinion. Ciao. --Paul0559 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your rationale (I didn't know we had just touched the 60 million mark), but as you say yourself, it's still hard to claim it's exactly that number. Keep in mind that "about" is not a weasel word (it's simply there to indicate the number is an estimate), so it won't hurt to have it there. LjL (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted statement that makes absolutely no sense

it actually had an important point to make, although the presentation was far from clear: milanese-italian (i.e. the variety of italian spoken in Milan) is one of the most influential dialects (of italian) at the sociolinguistic level (because of the prominent economic position that Milan enjoys). This must not be confused with Milanese, which is a variety of Western Lombard, NOT of Italian, and which is an L language in teh diglossic scenario. --Dakrismeno (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indents

Please keep in mind that I was replying to User:RicoCorinth, NOT to User:Redthoreau, and for that reason I used single indentation (":"). I believe that is proper use of indentation, and since it is the second time already that User:Redthoreau changes my indentation (and in the former case, moves my paragraph) making it appear as if they were the ones I was replying to, I thought I would point this out. LjL (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the mix up in reference to indentations. I have always understood that each post gets indented from the proceeding one - not how you described it. As for moving the post, that was in response to the fact that I went to post it and there was an edit-conflict with yours. My placement was to show that it was a response to him and not you. I will be conscious of this in the future, and not adjust your posts.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Indentation is probably often used sloppily by many, because it's not as transparent and easy to use as newsgroup threads, but at least in theory, it's supposed to follow Wikipedia:TP#Indentation and specifically Wikipedia:Indentation - so that it mimicks an actual thread, with indentation showing who one is replying to.

So two posts by two people at the same indentation level are supposed to mean they're both responding to the same previous post.

I hope this clears it up, sorry for snapping about it. LjL (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Here's when to put a disambig note on top: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage_guidelines. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok; in that case, I'm changing ASTER so that it redirects to Aster (which is a disambiguation page) rather than our Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, since if one types "ASTER" they get directly to the article and, per your edit, don't get to see any disambiguation information. LjL (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat refs

Re this edit [1] to Internet Relay Chat, as of revision 258665623 where {{morefootnotes}} was added [2] the references were quite poor. I had been considering removing the template you just removed but didn't think it was quite ready (although it was getting borderline). Overall the article still as a long way to go though. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It probably has a long way to go; but as a third-party who saw the article for the first time (well, or at least I don't remember reading it before), that template simply seemed out of place before such a huge list of references. Perhaps some other template would be needed (or, hey, perhaps there's too many references where references aren't needed, and too few where they are?), but that is not it - so I was bold and deleted it. LjL (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats why I left you a note, and I can see why you removed it. The article still has a long way to go both in terms of references/citations and expansion. Fully expanded and referenced I'd expect a few hundred links in the references section. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You're welcome! Happy Editing :) TubularWorld (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

References

I thought it was under the next cite, but I could be wrong, feel free to add them back if it isn't in it though, I could be wrong. --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

You made a good call here. Keep up your good work.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Z80 et al.

If you have a handle on the CPU articles, I'll leave them to you. I was mainly trying to add a few refs and the databooks (when they can still be found) since the other editor was taking such issue with them. The Websters quotation books [3] [4] make heavy use Wikipedia content and note it with [WP]. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, please contribute, there's a lot of citations to add, and I don't think I'll be able to find them all at all (not to mention properly citing them with "cite book" and such templates). I did find out that those Webster books were full of Wikipedia content... I had added a citation from them, then realized. Also, I hadn't realized the other editor was on a crusade against several CPU articles, rather than just Zilog Z80. That doesn't look good, really. Gratuitous templating is not. Of course, it's true that many of those article lack sources, but that is what Template:Unreferenced, Template:Refimprove and Template:No footnotes are for. --LjL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll still do some stuff but I really wanted to get back to working on the IRC article merger I'm really involved with right now. Talk:Zilog Z180 and [5] will give you an idea of what I was up against. The tagging of Zilog Z80 was retaliation on his part for me adding refs to some of the other Zilog CPU articles.
Don't worry about the citation templates too much, someone can always add those later. Just as long as the link and title are in the ref tags then it isn't difficult to change them. I just changed the refs in the Zilog Z8000 article to use the cite.php ref tag system, previously it was using one of the really really old citation formats that was commonly used on Wikipedia [6]
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Air Traffic Controller (video game)

In the game and in real life, planes (and also cars) reduce speed to avoid hitting another plane (or car) in front of them. Simple? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple enough. Then why doesn't the article say that, instead of the very cryptic "The function of speed reduction is returned. (Speeding up is unavailable)"? --LjL (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Because this feature was enabled in ATC1, removed in all ATC2 and ATC3 until the latest one (Sendai Airmanship) came out. You should have read the article first before calling out "clarification needed" because it has been stately clearly on the last one of first paragraph in the article about speed instructions and the reason for removal of such feature. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so a speed reduction feature, which was removed, has not been put back. That's seriously not the meaning that "the function of speed reduction is returned" conveys. That sounds like a mathematical function and the value it returns, you know. Besides, the article has absolutely no citations, so asking for clarifications is the least I can do. I still cannot really pinpoint the description of these chances in other paragraphs. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps it just really isn't clear? --LjL (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is an encyclopedia article. Its part should be reasonably clear without necessarily having to read the whole article; that's how encyclopedias work. --LjL (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jetset (video game)

I was pleasantly surprised at your withdrawal of the nomination. I've done all I can with the sources available to me - it has now got three citations and some more detail. Fences&Windows 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pandeism

It seems you've taken an interest in my research on the bias in the Pandeism article. I hope you favor a fair and correct telling of the history of things like this. Since by the grace of good fortune you also speak Italian, perhaps you would be so noble as to confirm the correctness of my received translation? The entire passage may readily be viewed on google books, which is here, http://books.google.com/books?id=viE7AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA16&dq=pandeismo Theoph876 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried, but honestly the Italian is a bit too old-fashioned (and stylistically involved, while at it) for me to make much sense out of it. Maybe I'll try again a literal translation, but honestly I can barely understand the concepts in what it's saying. --LjL (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. Perhaps you know someone able to tackle the more ancient tongue. It hd never occurred to me that so ancient a language as Italian could have an "old fashioned" style! But the gist of my translation, that Pandeism identifies man as fragments of God, and this is an abomination, that is surely correct? Theoph876 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems more or less correct to me, but I just couldn't swear on it. Italian has remained relatively stable for a long time, but some writers in 1700 and 1800 were fond of using an over-complicated style, I suppose they wanted to show they were very literate, or something. There are other more mundanely written pieces of the same age that I could ready without any trouble. --LjL (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Theoph876 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://landley.net/history/mirror/intel/faggin.html

ISBN-10/13

Re [7] because ISBN-13s are not fully supported and often fail when attempting to do lookups via the Special:Booksources links. I'm not sure who added the Please use the 13-digit one if available bit to WP:ISBN but that is wrong. ISBN-10s are industry standard and are trivial to convert to ISBN-13 but as of today ISBN-13 is just not widely supported by 3rd parties. Btw, you also undid my other edits. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed removing other things. I do think, though, that we should all be using ISBN-13 by now... it's been pushed as the new standard for a while, and I think if we're still stuck to ISBN-10, that's because of inertia, which we shouldn't really be copying.

There was also a bot on Wikipedia which went and changed ISBN-10's into ISBN-13, although that's been disabled now, for reasons I don't really know.

--LjL (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the bot was disabled because of some of these problems and the difficulty in validating ISBNs (sometimes the numbers people add are invalid or point to the wrong book). The note about -13s was added in this edit [8] and if I wasn't so busy I'd bring it up on Wikipedia talk:ISBN. The only difference between a -10 and -13 is the 978 prefix and the checksum digit. The problem I've found with many 3rd party searches is that they do not index ISBN-13. Google themselves only recently began adding -13s to their own book search service. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention that the rule I tend to use for adding ISBNs is if the book has a -10 (pre-2007), I use that. If it was published after the transition period and only has a -13, then I use that. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if it only has an ISBN-13, then I have no doubts you'd use that! :-P --LjL (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your violation of my talk page

Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments states, "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored." -- You just did that. Please stop. -- Rico 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And you removed my comments from a PUBLIC talk page, which is entirely bad manners, and you haven't stopped when asked. Boo to you. --LjL (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I've taken our disputes to ANI. -- Rico 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rorscharch

Just thinking we should provide a verbal description of what the numbers indicate as per WP:ALT and for further clarification. Are were these areas determined by were the person looked or having them point?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The test giver explicitly asks which features made one identify the blot as whatever they identified it as. Then they circle the pointed-at part in their notebook. That's my understanding of the sources, and it's also what's been done with me when I took the Rorschach. 26% means 26% of people find that feature prominent/identifying. --LjL (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on this article, I am glad to see it being improved. During my wanderings I came across a few sources. I have not had much time to look through them, but I did jot them down. They may be of interest to you: User:Chillum/sandbox#Rorschach test. Chillum 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno^talk

I have never partecipated in such a mediation before, so before agreeing I'd like some clarifications if you can. I am not really prepared to compromise to the point of removing any images or avoiding any content; the only change I can contemplate is moving the first image down in the article. So there is basically only one point among the ones you mentioned that I'd be willing to concede, which makes me wonder whether my partecipation wouldn't just be a waste of time for everybody; on the other hand, if I understand this correctly, my declining to partecipate would mean the mediation wouldn't go on at all. --LjL (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing to participate in mediation doesn't mean you necessarily concede to anything; it just means you're willing to have an outside party work through the content dispute. I listed the several issues just to give the mediator an idea on what issues are in contention. –xeno^talk 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rosecharacter test

I already warned the user, twice, technically. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen they had been warned (although I only noticed once), but since they messed up the article >=3 times, I thought I could give a sterner warning too. Not that it matters overly much while the article is semi-protected, but. --LjL (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the discription

Seem the NYTs has misspoke about who added the common discriptions of the inkblot. Have emailed the gentlemen who wrote it as if I remember right it was you. Anyway good work. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was me, yes, but I must admit I am a bit confused at this point. Well, quite confused; which article is it that claims a specific person added anything? The only NYT article I know about doesn't really mention those "common responses" or anything... I see there are a lot of other articles / blog posts popping up at the moment, some with more and some with less information taken from Wikipedia, but I've lost track; the talk page just goes faster than I can catch up. --LjL (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have mentioned your involvement in some of the interviews I have given. I have another half dozen schedueled. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

IP User 69.225.251.134

This IP has begun to sign "lysdexia" on User talk:69.225.251.134, and so appears to be the banned user User:Lysdexia (notice the same pattern of bizarre edits). Strad (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to be honest I had noticed that... However, I didn't know whether it was appropriate to report them and where, not having really dealt with this kind of thing before. --LjL (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Browser errors?

You seem to be inadvertently adding random characters to the top business, i.e. [9] [10] [11] [12] . Not sure if these are browser errors (?) or just typos. You might consider using "section edit" which will focus on the particular section you are commenting on and hopefully avoid errant letters. cheers, –xeno^talk 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, uhm... I haven't the slighest idea. I'll try to use section edit. --LjL (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. You may be interested in the most recent addition I made to the talk page too. –xeno^talk 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090731/rorschach_090731/20090731?hub=TopStories ? --LjL (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep... there's also the accompanying video but I can't seem to figure how to give a direct link, it's linked at the canada AM homepage: http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam –xeno^talk 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see what you're saying. I'm sort of glad he only mentioned country. --LjL (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific America

Hey LJL you are mentioned here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=answers-to-the-rorschach-test-revea-09-08-02 I think the Becks depression index is here I do not know about the MPPI :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological test

I support your effort to better improve the organization and access to these images. They may all have to be looked into place like those on the Rorschach page however.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your ongoing promotion of freedom of information and the virtues of Wikipedia in spite of strong opposition. Keep up the good work.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :-) --LjL (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Zilog Z380 May Memory map TI-80 December June TI-73 series Poisoned J True north COMPUTE!'s Gazette Trieste Syntax Ganz CyberGraphX BDS C National Party of Honduras Meta key Skid (aerodynamic)

Cleanup Friulian language Romance copula Sardinian language Merge Animal language Quechua SAMPA chart Add Sources Machine code monitor SAM Coupé Classical Latin Wikify In-circuit emulator Metro-Cross Atkins v. Virginia Expand Latin grammar Device driver Radio navigation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelaya

i did not put destitution i put deposition which is obviously better than destitution since that word means another thing, but deposition means exactly what i refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manuel_Zelaya#it_was_not_a_Coup_d.27_Etat Vercetticarl (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did originally put "destitution", you only changed it shortly after my warnings. Please - I can read article history. --LjL (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Honduras

what 80.223.214.74 says totally makes sense, please answer me why wikipedia does recognize coup leader Andry Rajoelina to be the faithfully president of Madagascar, and Micheletti is not consider president? what's the difference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honduras#Honduras_President Vercetticarl (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can read you fine on the Honduras talk page, no need to mirror it here. --LjL (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates on Extremaduran language

¿Porqué pusiste esa plantilla innecesariamente?. Ese artículo no tiene ninguna citation needed (cita requerida). Tampoco se puede exigir referencias para todo. un saludo...--El estremeñu (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, write in English; thank you. --LjL (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Podría escribiros en italiano, --El estremeñu (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia; other editors may be interested in our discussion; therefore, we should write in English. --LjL (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Extremaduran language, has all references. --El estremeñu (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You could have said that in your edit summaries. Anyway, I do not believe that to be the case; therefore, I'll tag every sentence I cannot readily see a reference for. Please provide them, or otherwise don't remove the tags. --LjL (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your language. Please, talk in Italian. Only is necesasary the articles are wroten in English. But is not necessary in discussion. Saludos --El estremeñu (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit another encyclopedia if you don't understand the language of this one. I'll speak Italian on the Italian Wikipedia, not here. --LjL (talk)

Bye!, we can not talk between us. You don't understand. Un saludo --El estremeñu (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tú eres el que tiene que hablar Inglés en la enciclopedia en inglés, no yo español o italiano. Hay otras personas aquí que podrian querer leer lo que escribimos nosotros. Puedes utilizare Google Translate para ayudarte con la traducción, pero no puedes creer tener razón con esa insistencia de hablar otras lenguas en la enciclopedia en inglés. --LjL (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know much about Extremaduran language. I can to say you. that article doesn't need more references. I can to ensure it. --El estremeñu (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry. Sometimes I am thoom. --El estremeñu (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think you'd better express your sorrow on the ANI report (I wonder, though, would you be sorry if I hadn't reported you in the first place)? --LjL (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, correct the errors in the article La posada de los muertos. --El estremeñu (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No obvious errors; I just believe that article shouldn't exist. --LjL (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If a person, teach me something. Also is necessary a citation. It is question --El estremeñu (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Err... what? --LjL (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, I believe, you would must respond in my talk. --Der extremadurisch (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I will respond in the talk page where the discussion is. --LjL (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you to remove that template in the article La posada de los muertos. --Der extremadurisch (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What, the deletion template?! No, of course not. The template will be deleted after the deletion debate has run out. --LjL (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?, you are not an administratot. --Ille extremadurensis (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You will not have problems with the references in my article. I have understand it. --Ille extremadurensis (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What does my not being administrator have to do with anything?! --LjL (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)