Norm mit

Hullo, and welcome to Wikipedia!  :-) I copyedited the article you created at Tonal Languages, and left a note here. While I was at it, I moved the article to Tonal language, in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions. There was some discussion some time back, at Talk:Tone (linguistics)#Article split, about the possibility of splitting that article as you have done. If you're interested in expanding the Tonal language article, a good place to start is by merging information from Tone (linguistics) into the Tonal language article, simultaneously excising it from Tone (linguistics). My recommendation is to leave the stuff dealing with tonality itself in Tone (linguistics), and dealing exclusively with tonal languages in Tonal language. Best wishes, Tomer^talk 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fg2 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Ming of Harlem) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ArchStanton 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have remove Sharpe's Fury from the references of the article because it is a fictional book and should not be used as a reference on anything historical. Carl Logan 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed that on several language pages you've changed the wording to say Language A "adopted" a word from Language B, rather than "borrowed" it. "Adopt" is certainly more accurate a description of the process than "borrow" is, but on the other hand it's almost universal in language descriptions and linguistics to use the term "borrow". Since the term is so universal and wide-spread, I'm a bit concerned about its being replaced with a more accurate, but rarely-used, term. ...I dunno. What are your thoughts? Take care, --Miskwito 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that. But part of the problem is that Wikipedia isn't the place for neologisms or for starting trends in vocabulary or terminology (see WP:NEO). If you know of a linguistic publication or something like that which uses "adopt" instead of "borrow" with this sense, then it could make more sense to use it on Wikipedia that way, and would be easier to justify. Take care, --Miskwito 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice edit - could you please add the language Red Pencil is translated from, plus a source if possible? Thanks, Vizjim 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Sharpe's Enemy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't really care one way or the other but both spellings are used. Note Hemingway used "Moveable" (A Moveable Feast) and the WP article is "moveable feast". Probably no reason to change to match your preference. Gr8white (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

History and logic don't determine what "should" be in terms of spelling. Both "moveable" and "movable" are correct and your arguments just apply to your personal preference, not what others "should" use. Gr8white (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Norm -

It was good to meet you earlier today. Regarding your question on book covers (at the moment, it looks like roughly half the ones that were disputed, per the notices above, are still in place), I think you put identified the issue correctly - it's the scan resolution.

Specifically, the fair use criteria being cited is {{Non-free book cover}}; if you follow that link, you'll see that the template includes the following:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers

• to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

And the rationale on the image page (which I assume you filled out at the time of uploading) says "Low resolution?" "Yes".

So my guess is that the objecting bot, BetacommandBot, is programmed to compared the actual image resolution to some criteria for "low resolution", and to object if the actual image resolution is too high. Of course, it would really be helpful if the bot were to actually say that, rather than to spit out a generic objection, leaving you (and others) to try to figure out the specific problem.

(Just in case - if you're questioning WHY book cover images have to be low-resolution, I think the answer is "Because copyright lawyers feel that this give the Foundation the lowest likelihood of being sued, other than not having such images at all." You're not likely to actually find that language anywhere, I expect - though I'd also not be surprised to find a discussion somewhere - because this is something not subject to consensus - it really doesn't matter what editors think, this is a legal issue and a position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Well, looking around, there is discussion at Template talk:Non-free book cover)

Finally, my sense is that the higher-resolution scans of yours which are still in place aren't safe, even though the objections posted in sections above apparently haven't been acted on. Someone could start up a new bot, or change the parameters of a bot, or editors could start working this category by hand - any of those, and you'd be facing another objection and potential deletion. I really think - as irritating as it may be - that you'd be much better off (and Wikipedia would be better for it) if you'd do a low resolution scan to replace all the higher resolution images you uploaded, whether they are still in place or were deleted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed that most of the warnings above had blue links to the images - showing that they still existed, rather than red links (nothing on the other end except perhaps a deletion). But, as I noted in my last paragraph, the fact that images still exist is no guarantee that they will continue to - fair use images are under intense review, and all it would take would be one editor deciding to enforce the "low resolution" criteria, to set off another round of warnings and potential deletions. I really think you'd be better off uploading low resolution scans on top of the high resolution ones, if that isn't too much trouble for you. Your call, of course. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why The Gambia? ^{[citation needed]} --Yecril (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thank you for you comment; the postal abbreviations in the smaller states have been used before but I thought that it would look better with the uniform 2-letter codes for those states (you can check them here), also in the case of Mexico State (Estado de México) its long abbreviation is "Edomex" which is just too long to fit in the given space that's why I had to use "EM" instead; regarding the Federal District since that area already has like 5 codes (QU, HD, TL, MO, PU) to throw one more in might be too much so I decided to put that black box with the description at the right, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your additions to the Battle of Waterloo but can you please provide citations to back up what you have added:[1]

• "A secondary, political, objective was for a Napoleonic victory parade through friendly, French-speaking Brussels." -- This has been questioned on the talk page. (talk:Battle of Waterloo#Friendly, French-speaking Brussels)
• "(The bulk of the Peninsular army had been sent to North America to prosecute the War of 1812.)" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Norm mit. I just saw you on the Megan Fox article. I just wanted to let you know that the reason the punctuation was like that is due to WP:Logical quotation, which is why I changed it back to that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Saw your recent edits to The Way We Live Now. Unfortunately, the plot summary in the WP article appears to be based on the television adaptation rather than the book. It really needs to be torn down and rewritten, and I'm afraid that effort spent on tightening up the current language will prove to be effort wasted.

--Ammodramus (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your suggestion has considerable merit. I haven't seen the TV show, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the synopsis, and would therefore be reluctant to add it to the TV show's article myself. If you've seen it and think that the synopsis is accurate, I'd support your moving it.

If it's not done by someone else before I can get to it, I intend to rewrite the plot summary of the novel. However, it's a long book with many interwoven subplots, and I'd want to reread it at least once before I took on that task.

--Ammodramus (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Medicus (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book, search finds no outside sourcing, red-linked author with no sign of notability herself.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Terra Incognita (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book, search finds no outside reliable sourcing, red-linked author with no sign of notability herself.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Medicus Mystery Series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Medicus (novel).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Budge caricature.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Please would you provide a citation to show how you can justify adding the phrase "and 'Gaius' was his personal name". Eddaido (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to dispute the various usages of names in Caesar's time, I do mean to question the addition that you made to the comparison with 21st century English language usage of given or personal names and surnames. I suspect it would be wiser to omit the portion in brackets. However you are at perfect liberty to remove my additions. Thanks for responding. Eddaido (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Norm mit. I see that I've talked to you before, in the #WP:Logical quotation section above on your talk page (back in 2009).

I'm visiting your talk page now because I want to elaborate on why I reverted you at the Tribadism article. Like I stated there, some people don't know that clitorides, like clitorises, is the plural form of clitoris and they may therefore be confused when seeing clitorides (either initially or until they look it up). Unless a WP:ENGVAR matter, it's best to use the spelling variation, in this case the plural variation, that people are more familiar with. See this discussion I had at Auric's talk page that mentions vulvas vs. vulvae and penises vs. penes. That discussion concerns the Tribadism article as well; I used the variation vulvae instead of vulvas. But, from what I have seen, I think that most people are used to using the variation vulvas instead of vulvae, just like they are used to to using the variation penises instead of penes. This was further confirmed, in my opinion, by this IP, who changed my use of vulvae to vulvas in the Tribadism article, calling it "regular plural." That's why, somewhat in the middle of the previous hour, I changed the other instance to vulvas as well.

All that stated, I didn't mind the other edits you made to the Tribadism article.

If you reply to me about this, I'd prefer that you reply here on your page, as to keep the discussion in one spot. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

| style="padding:0 10px;" |  

|}

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hekla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katla (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) 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding the reference to Chafe's work on the Seneca language. As you can see, his article is barely a stub and for someone of his stature, that's a shame. I was a student of his in the 1980s and I'd like to flesh out the article to include more information on his work in the field of Iroquoian languages but there just doesn't seem to be a good place to begin. Chafe's widely diverse study interests in other areas also make it hard for me to know where to begin. I would also like to flesh out the articles on Linguists who worked with him, such as Marianne Mithun and Lyle Campbell. Indeed, even the Floyd Lounsbury article is in dire need of clean-up and proper referencing. If you have the time and interest in working with me on these articles and others, I would be most grateful for any time you could allot to any one of them. If you don't have the time, thanks for even that one edit. it gave me hope to see the Chafe article show up on my watchlist as having had a change this year! LiPollis (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Norm, got your reply. Would be happy to chat with you over the phone, on FB, whatever. I am Lisa Feerick Pollison on facebook. I was known as Lisa M. Feerick professionally but also published as Margeret Feerick for a while (the M). I did Study with Chafe, Mithun, Campbell, Francine Frank and many others. I piled on so I could take graduate courses for free and have them count towards more than 1 degree but there was a rule change the semester before my graduation trying to prevent crafty studentssuch as myself from getting 3 degrees for the cost of one. How they choose to record my degrees NOW has likely changed yet again but I had a BS and a BA with some major arguments over the MA I had earned but wasn't allowed to keep unless I paid more money.

That rather spoiled me a bit on sorting out the paperwork to finish in Albany, so after some museum work, I went into Science fiction Publishing which was amusing since the State Archeologist of NY at the time, Dr. Robert E. Funk was a HUGE Dr. Who fan and he liked it whenever I'd call him and tell him when I'd met yet another "Doctor". Dr. Funk doesn't yet have his own article here and he really ought to. Here's a page linking to his Bio ROBERT E FUNK.I kept up with my graduate work in Industrial archeology and Folklore when I moved to LA in 1990 coinciding with my careers in Film Development and Subsidiary rights. Link to my facebook page is here: My FB Page.

I have some of Marianne Mithun's books on Mohawk that are just rotting on my shelves. I could sell them but I'd much rather gift them to a student. If you want them, You are welcome to them. I'd only ask for shipping fees if you are overseas. I'm in CA USA. I have all my own notes and fieldwork on Mohawk, the St. Regis Dialect, which is more than sufficient for my own use. I may even have a cassette tape or two of one of our native speakers that was given to all 6 or 8 of us who studied with Marianne for 3 years at SUNYA. I'd like such materials to land with a student and enthusiast. Chat me up sometime on my page or via FB. As you have likely read, FB is becoming the "uncool" hang-out of old people such as myself. There is a private Linguistics group there and the young feller that runs it wouldn't let me in because nearly everything I published was before 1994 and as you know, that might as well be before written history itself in terms of Google caches! Most of my work is on Mircofilm somewhere. Heck, I had to invent a way of doing the 3 lines of translation atop each other, writing my own code, using a Commadore 64 and I wound up trading the program to other Linguistics at the time. People were still hiring typists to make the spacings look approximate in those days. Sadly, there was precious little money available to fund those of us doing work in Iroquois Language and culture in the 1980s. Mithun and Chafe went back to Santa Barbara full time, I assume owing to his age. Campbell hit the road and had successful stints at a number of terrific universities, but then, he always was a self-starter who could energize both Grads and undergrads. It's best if you both send me a friend request AND a message on FB. I'll check my "other" box. Stick the word: Ahkwesáhsne - somehwere in any communication. I have an email attached to this account and you can try that too but FB is quickest. All the best. LiPollis (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC):Reply

Norm, you are correct in one thing, Marianne's last name was once Williams but she went by Marianne Mithun Williams. See her article referred to in this link: A Grammar of Tuscarora by Marianne Mithun Williams. Here is a photo from the 1990s that depicts the Marianne I knew and liked so well [2]. Since this is part of the course catalog from Santa Barbara, I feel it is safe to use under the Fair Use Doctrine. it was intended for the public. There are other more recent photos but they are of a more personal naure. This is a very typical photo of her and therefore would make a good article photo. As for her names, Mithun is her maiden name. I only ever knew her "officially" as Mithun and as part of a romantic & scholarly couple with Wally Chafe. That kind of detail was always well-known but not exactly discussed. it was just stated as a fact and then left hanging. I don't much about wally Chafe's life before he began working with Marrianne, since she was the source of much of the info I do know and all of it professional, but they have been working and living together ever since I have known them. I never felt I had the right to ask, especially since there was an awful lot of intra-departmental dating at SUNYA. Shoot me an email at HollyCricket@aol.com and perhaps we can have a brief phone chat. I also have for sale on ebay, am old Nahuatl Grammar and vocabulary which I'd be happy to include in the gift. Just pay postage and they're yours. LiPollis (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Norm, I'm sorry I dropped the ball. You and I were chatting about this just as I began having some health problems. You'll note that I've edited only once in a while since we first chatted. I will give you a call. you can call me at 310-919-8267 but if my husband answers, just tell him when you can call me back. I was wrong about my list of papers and books. I found 2 off-prints of Mithun's from the International Journal of American Linguistics. One is called Stalking The Susquehannocks Januaey 1981 and the other is "The synchronic and diachronic behavior of plops, squeaks, croaks, sighs and moans" (In Iroquoian languages) Jan 1982. I began studying with her in 1982, BTW. The other books I have are by other people One is a Grammar of Awkesasne Mohawk by Nancy Bonvillain, which we used as a textbook in Mithun's classes and the others are A Thousand Words of Mohawk by Gunthar Michelson, also used as a text followed by Mohawk Stories by a variety of authors edited by Marrianne Williams AKA Mithun. Williams was her married name, I believe. She reverted to her maiden name when she divorced and got together with Wally Chafe. The book was published in 1976 by the NYS Museum. SO I have all that and a slightly worse for wear Grammar of Nahuatl . They are all for you, my self taught friend. Ain't nobody else gonna want them. <3LiPollis (talk)

Incidentally, I see that Mithun has linked to PDFs of almost all her articles so here's the link. Have fun reading: Mithun Publications. There's a lot to absorb there. LiPollis (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the article Defective script has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defective script. – Uanfala (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Aaron Bruce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Batman, Turkey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Aaron Bruce (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Good King Harry.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arash Amel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Damien Lewis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply