User talk:Sestet

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Sestet, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing!--Alf ^melmac 07:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian progressive

Wouldn't it be better to move the detailed treatment of the progressive in Italian to Italian grammar#Verbs, where it is not treated at all at the moment, and summarize in Continuous and progressive aspects, where the present detailed treatment is not in balance with that for other languages?

Perhaps. Though I'd rather see the detail of the other languages consideredably widened on the progressive page, though. I think it's an important enough to subject to warrant beyond a mere summary, but I sadly cannot contribute to it in languages beyond German, Italian, and English. Although, the English section is given a highly detailed treatment on the page, not much less so than I gave to Italian. Sestet 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue. You wrote: 'While in English, one may say "We are reading" and "We have been reading" to two different effects, there is no expression specifically for the latter in Italian.' But isn't that the difference between Stiamo leggendo and Stavamo leggendo? You may have wanted to say that you can't distinguish idiomatically between "We were reading" and "We have been reading". --Lambiam 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. "We are reading" is present progressive, "We have been reading" is present perfect progressive. The perfect aspect (including some conjugation of "to be" and "to have") does not exist in Italian. "We have been reading" has a different connotative meaning than "We were reading," which is the difference between present perfect progressive and past progressive, the latter of which can be expressed in Italian, but not the former. Sestet 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unclear in how I expressed myself. My fear is that the reader will interpret the statement that "the Italian language does not differentiate, as English does, between progressive and perfect progressive", contrasting this to the distinction between English "We are reading" and "We have been reading", to mean that there is some Italian sentence that, depending on the context, can mean both "We are reading" and "We have been reading". But, unless I'm mistaken, no such sentence exists. Would it be incorrect to replace "progressive" by "past progressive" and "We are reading" by "We were reading"? If not, then, to make things crystal clear (to me), perhaps you could indicate which of the following English sentences could (in the right context) be used to translate which Italian sentences, and conversely:

(A) We read. (present tense)

(B) We read. (past tense)

(C) We have read.

(D) We had read.

(E) We are reading.

(F) We were reading.

(G) We have been reading.

(H) We had been reading.

(1) Leggiamo.

(2) Leggemo

(3) Leggevamo.

(4) Abbiamo letto.

(5) Avevamo leggere.

(6) Siamo leggendo.

(7) Eravamo leggendo.

(8) Stavamo leggendo.

(9) Siamo stati leggendo.

(10) Ci era stato leggendo.

--Lambiam 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed what you said about Eric Cartman's name's origin...

We would need an actual reference. I completly agree it's a high-possibility, but until there's a reliable verification - one from official material, like the SouthParkStudios.com site - it would be considered speculation and/or original research. You could go on and ask them in the FAQ department whether this theory of yours is true or not - but good luck getting an answer; I've asked them several questions, and they've never answered. (Though this might be because I'm not a logged-in user there.) Wilhelmina Will 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound impolite, but what you described - your own mental process - is exactly what original research is! A possibly or probably unpublished statement, which someone just thought up, however cleverly and probably. I have a feeling you may be right on this, though. Good luck, and your welcome for the suggestion! Wilhelmina Will 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo... any luck with the search yet? Wilhelmina Will 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prima

Per your concern, I have re-worked the page again and left a longer edit summary, but figured I'd drop you a line. I split the entries into sections and re-ordered to go in the appropriate section. I've also removed a couple entries - my criteria was those entries that do not have wikilinks to connect to, or used only external links to provide context or information.

I've removed the other languages section, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and neither are disambiguation pages, and the MOS:DAB provides guidance here. Though I could be mis-reading it, so feel free to replace if this is the case.

Feel free to contact me if you have any comments, and please do so if you correct an error I have made, I edit pretty quickly so my mistakes are middling common. Also, I like to know what mistakes I've made so I can avoid repeating them! WLU (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a deletionist, I hate anything that's not perfect, and remove it accordingly. WP:RED says (I believe) that redlinks should only be included if the page is likely to be created in the near future - as I define the near future as "In the next hour", usually that's not good enough for me and I brutally cull accordingly. But it's an extreme of the guideline. Overall though, there's no point (in my mind) to having a redlink on a disambiguation page, which is specifically designed to navigate between pre-existing pages. Redlink = no page to confuse. My opinion is that if you think it's important enough to add a redlink, then you should think it's important enough to create the page. I'm sure I'm the minority though, I usually am :) Thanks for the discussion, lemme know if you've got any more points you think I may have missed. WLU (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fault you for your question or reversion, it was a substantial amount of text removed, with a pretty crappy edit summary, and your follow-up was very civil. And since WP:RED is a style guideline, it doesn't have any more weight than what the readers and editors give it. No offence taken whatsoever, and it forced me to become more familiar with RED and MOSDAB, so you actually helped me out. Thanks!

Given wikipedia is a multinational rather than US-specific encyclopedia, I don't consider a multi-state company as guaranteed to be notable enough for a wikipage automatically. I see redlinks as something frustrating for readers attempting to find a page, rather than an urge to expand. But that's just my opinion, and it's not like I'm the boss of wikipedia. Though sometimes people seem to think I am. Irrespective, there shouldn't be external links on a DAB page, that's just spam. Thanks for the conversation, and keeping me honest.

You know, I don't think I really have a point here. I think I just like to type. WLU (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Traherne

Just saw your re-assessment application for Thomas Traherne. Just thought I'd suggest you got those inline citations done post-haste, as they make the time put in so much more obvious. That's just my view though. Jarry1250 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]