User talk:AnonMoos

76: 1689: 127: 69: 1203: 253: 366: 2604: 2829: 134: 993:. While researching on the pronunciation of its fricative consonants, Ugaritic loan words from Hittite show up as evidence. These consistently transcribe Hittite "s" as Ugaritic "t_", which is very strange because "s" is likely an alveolar or a post alveolar fricative, while this suggests a interdental place of articulation instead. However, I've seen you mention a merger in some semitic branch that would make a lot of sense if it applied to this language as well. 3507: 2141: 2936: 3127: 3366: 3033: 2302: 1926: 1582: 1033: 758: 868: 3120: 331: 3476: 1291: 3541:. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledge’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. 695: 3618:. As you don't seem to have been aware of the CTOP restrictions in this area before, this warning is not an AE action and will not be logged. (For what it's worth, the user you addressed is not currently able to participate in that topic area, as their extended-confirmed status has been revoked.) Thanks. 1111:, plus mentions of her in books about Noam. I'm wondering if there is enough out there to establish her notability for an article about her. Not that I'm asking you to do research for me, but I thought I'd ask in case you might know off the top of your head of any places where I should look. Thanks much. 2661:

I've been looking at the above contributions you made, way back when WP was young, and I'm wondering if the work underlies some original research. It would be really cool if you could provide some source for this – It's not that I believe it to be inaccurate, just it would be nice to be able to trace

1466:

You don't have a basic grasp of the issues involved or a basic grasp of the correct terminology; the first two sentences of the entry are sufficiently amateurish that they are practically gibberish. I corrected the second sentence, and then you undid my correction. I am an expert in these matters

1152:

definition of Classical language. (This is how I arrived at the article). Unfortunately, when Google does this it is not clear that this is a quote or the opinion of one scholar (from 1921). There exist, of course, other sources that disagree with his classification. For this reason, I don't think we

231:

I'm not accustomed to using the "User Talk" pages, so pardon my ignorance. You made a comment on my User Talk page under the headline "Pentimal". Now, I've answered you there. But, your User Talk page is here, so how can you know if I don't tell you? Anyway, maybe it doesn't matter. I think the issue

2493:

Sorry to ghost you, but perhaps you should think of it as a favor. Meanwhile, consider how, "Who did you run into?" is a perfectly cromulent example of colloquial English. "Whom did you run into?" satisfies a narrow swath of grammatical weenies, and "Into whom did you run?" sounds like a schoolmarm

1875:

Yes, I did know that, but I hadn't taken it into account when making that particular edit. Regardless, I don't think it makes a difference - the page is about words that have no rhymes in the English language, UK or US. If a word has a perfect rhyme in either dialect, then it shouldn't be on a page

1437:

3) Although I see your point, that if you delete a component then one has a two crossing link - and there are only 2 two crossing links, the unlink and the Hopf link. But this point is not made clearly in the second sentence. I personally don't think this is important enough to put in the second

1252:

Look, AnonMoos, I can understand you don't like socks and socking--nor do I, much--but, honestly, there's no need to expend so much energy on that talk page. They're unlikely to come back anyway, but, honestly, to an outsider, it might look as if you're kicking them when their down. Whether we like

2461:

as "after that" (Webster) or "after that time" (Oxford). Webster has no corresponding examples, but Oxford has 20 examples. None of the examples account for an instance like, "The first car, and two of the three vehicles thereafter, were damaged." Thus, the Oxford definition is too narrow for this

2395:

who left." Her explanation: "I hurried after them" is correct by itself wherein "after" is a preposition and "them" is a prepositional object. However, my sentence continued so that "they who left" is, in its entirety, a nominal clause as the object of "after." So, properly construed, it's not, "I

1178:

For example where the quote says, "In comparison with these, even such culturally important languages as Hebrew and French sink into a secondary position". Like you, I thought this was very interesting, but many sources contradict. Problem is Google pulled it from us as the objective definition of

996:

Also, Ugaritic seems to represent Hittite "h-(", which is likely an uvular or pharyngeal fricative, with the letters for "g" and "h-.",. It is odd that for "h-(" to have two different places of articulation, but you mention a merger here as well. Could you fill me in with the details on how should

925:

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Knowledge policies and guidelines; we could use some additional

583:

That doesn't preclude any in-image error corrections, since the image tag would automatically display the latest version of the image. However, any error corrections that involve changes in file name, such as may arise from cross-checking, would of course have to be duplicated in the List. If that

552:

I was planning to first, do post-upload cross-checking and minor error-corrections, then sort them by according to Unicode order, then decide which is the basic or most typical sign (in cases where multiple Assyrian Cuneiform glyphs correspond to a single Unicode code point). However, I only ever

2387:

It's come to the point that I'm no longer moved to reply to your comments on P-stranding. Why? All of your comments are either ad hominem (and therefore irrelevant) or evincing naïve linguistic theory. By "naïve linguistic theory," I mean one that focuses on the issues that relate to one specific

626:

I don't have any profound knowledge of Athanasius Kircher. I've just seen various of his diagrams and maps for many years, and know that he was attempting a kind of grand synthesis of traditional systems and schemas at a time when many of them would soon be pushed aside by the rise of modern

2485:

as an adjective; I know of no lexicographer who'd define it as an adjective; I know of no linguist who'd parse it as an adjective - particularly because linguists tend, by and large, stuck in their own provincial spheres of naïve linguistic theory. I, on the other hand, am not. Neither is

770:

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.

615:

Thank you also for your book recommendation on Kircher. Would you attribute the decline of his reputation to the change of the cultural climate from mysticism (indulging in misconceptions) to rationalism (combatting them) then, or do you see a timeless lesson for us as human beings? —

1045:

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.

571:

I'm surprised you base the sorting on Unicode. I had assumed you'd prefer MesZL, as you did in your collection. So I anticipated only the problem of one MesZL having several Unicode representations. What I had in mind for including them in the List of cuneiform signs was just

2423:", otherwise you'll be stuck analyzing "hurried after them" and "they who left" under separate and distinct naïve linguistic theories that can't be reconciled individually in the manner synthesized in a sentence like "I hurried after they who left" wherein "they" is both the 2215:

edit did some cleanup, such as changing a hyphen to an en-dash, but also managed to accidentally trash the original nominator's signature link, presumably as some sort of attempted text cleanup. Do you know what happened and how to keep that from happening again? Cheers,

2231:

Actually it changed an en dash to a hyphen, which is also not ideal. It looks like the kind of thing that happens when you text gets run through different encodings. Are you by any chance copying the wikicode from your browser to another application to edit it, AnonMoos?

515:...because it seem the bot is the correct answer. Nobody had responded to my post at the time, but I see that you since have. I'm sure there would be far more articles in each language if we never deleted them. 10x as many ? 100x ? This I don't know. 553:

got 30% of the way through post-upload cross-checking and minor error-corrections. I could give you a table of the SVGs in Unicode order, but it would be missing some of the cross-checking, and there would be multiple SVGs for some Unicode code points...

403:

Thanks for your copy-editing of my work on this article. Although I am actually an excellent speller, I'm a much-less-than-excellent typist, and having a keyboard that is slowly dying doesn't help. Thanks for the corrections., they are appreciated.

3305:

Please desist from introducing novel arguments into articles, not citing them, and then reverting the good faith deletions from editors pointing out that you cannot introduce original research in this fashion. Any novel argument must have clear

3455:

you added a section of your own while at the same time removing a different section without even acknowledging it. Was that intentional? Even if the original section was jokey, simply removing it without comment sounds like bad style to me.

2096:

sometimes I forget to sign, and then my "AutoSign" is supposed to kick in. It failed to do so this time. I wonder what's up with that? The template page says it's supposed to take care of it within 5 minutes, but this went several hours. :(

2258:

made changes to a number of other posts, including changing the appearance of another editor's signature. I'm sure this was an unintentional by-product of some sort of script or tool you are using, but it isn't really desirable behaviour.

3321:

Whether or not a sentence has been "on the article" for years is not germane in any regard to whether it is properly cited. At any point, any author can tag a sentence and that sentence can be removed for no citation or bad citation as

2494:

from the 19th century or earlier. In any event, unless you're a very tiny person who ran and entered an epically large human being, I don't think "into" can properly be parsed as a preposition in this day and age under the "Who did you

2501:

Now, please excuse me while I'm off to always understand the conclusions of mainstream linguistics better than I seem to think I do. There are loads of corresponding items into and up which I must look and out about which I must find.

2453:." I take back everything from the preceding paragraph if you can spot the zeugma in that quote. Give up? Answer: it's the word, "thereafter." Specifically, there's no dictionary anywhere that defines "thereafter" as anything but an 2446:) insists that it's one or the other. A modern linguistic approach acknowledges how, despite the identical word order, the semantic interpretation depends on disparate syntaxes: The meaning and syntax are by no means fixed. 2982: 2457:. You can rightfully accuse me of originality when I say there's no compelling reason, except convention, not to construe "thereafter" as an adjective in certain instances. Specifically, major dictionaries define 1107:

in which you mentioned you were familiar with his work. I'm taking a shot in the dark and wondering if you might be able to point me to any sources about Elsie Chomsky and her work and career. So far I found this

1708:-related articles on Knowledge. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the 847:

A new unknown editor User Holy Logician wants to change the agreed consensus,which was using the term "Flag used by the Assad Government" and he wnats to change it to the "Flag used by the Syrian Government".

232:

may be solved now, in a non-controversial manner. I still would like to thank you for reminding me. Happy New Year, that is if your preferred timekeeping system or calendar has a new year around this time :)

2943: 2929: 2641:

Hello! I was just adding the death year to that article's short description. Someone else put that as his short description in the past. Feel free to change it for all I care. Thanks for the information.

1441:

As a professional mathematician, this is a discouraging experience - to try and help Knowledge and then have it undone. Feel free to try and understand the points I made and to make the corrections.

3395:. 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 3062:. 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 2329:. 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 1953:. 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 1609:. 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 1057:. 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 782:. 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 2720:(which seems to be very different as it disregards history), and also with regards to the OP's request of "Without getting into the gun politics angle," which pretty much goes to trash right away. 663: 1340:

Hi sir Iam a team member of Colors from Knowledge. I request can you created articles about our upcoming shows like, Choti Sardaarni , Vish: A Poisonous Story And Vidya if you created that

645:

Oh, don't worry! You read the book, that's profound enough for me. What was the lesson you learned from it? But maybe I should read Middlemarch first; I haven't read anything by G.E. yet. —

3251: 2924: 3579:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics

3411: 3078: 2345: 2157:

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

1969: 1625: 1073: 798: 2177: 2712:

I don't want to overstep but when I used to do the ref desk years ago I always appreciated people calling me out on stuff. Since you made all the top-level replies to the OP in the

2391:

As part of an elementary school homework assignment, I'd included the sentence, "I hurried after them who left." My English composition instructor corrected it to, "I hurried after

3380: 3047: 2315: 2170: 2082:

The unbecoming aspect was removed without the intention to whitewash an accident. Does not give you the right to remove new additions to someone's biography. Thank you very much.

1939: 1898: 1595: 990: 2573: 2790:

here. It looks like some kind of loose phonetic translation from the Hebrew characters, but it is not precise or the "J", for "י", is a German J which is Y like. ---Lilach5 (

1298: 1283: 2434:

And now you, AnonMoos, repeatedly refuse or otherwise fail to consider how a zeugma or syllepsis is at work regarding a sentence like, "That's the house I ran into." Did I

2743:

but whatever text processor you're using doesn't seem to play nice with Unicode characters in other people's messages. Your comment seems to have accidentally swapped the

2162: 591: 1222: 1311:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

1306: 1511: 1282: 2185: 95: 1899:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Immigrants_to_the_United_States_of_America_lying_about_their_education_and%2For_their_work_experience

2158: 2580:

in the past and given your knowledge of the Arabic script, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide.

465: 1827: 3588: 2656: 1497:

I understand your point here. Anyway, I'll try to follow your advice from now on. That said, though, you certainly don't have to be so obnoxious about this.

3265: 2716:

I'm directing this criticism to you: none of your replies seem to address the OP's question and seem to be counterproductive in directing to Scalia and

2255: 2212: 2017:

made by the BBC. My video tape had faded long ago so it was a pleasant surprise to find this a couple years ago. Best regards and have a pleasant week.

926:

help from an experienced user like yourself. It would also be good to have a reviewer with your experience in theology for when related topics come up.

2206: 535: 3020: 2372: 1995: 1428:. It is quite flawed and I made an attempt to fix the most egregious flaw, but you undid it. The third sentence is fine, but the first two are not. 1364: 1651: 1091: 816: 1330: 689: 2064: 1696: 1567: 1226: 1474: 1448: 1012: 998: 3607: 2755:) in GoodDay's messaage to a hyphen. It looks sort of like a lossy conversion from UTF8 to ASCII? Just figured I should let you know of that. 2671: 2188:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 1864: 2837: 2111:

This is an additional sentence, with no signature, so we'll see if anything happens; and if it doesn't, maybe I need to go to the Help Desk?

3438: 3105: 2125: 1784: 590:

Now that I look at your collection more closely, I realize that I don't understand it. Why do you combine MesZL 3 and MesZL 2 in one image,

2225: 2713: 2388:

area of interest while neglecting how it impinges adjacent areas. If you're scratching your head at me, here's a smidgen of background...

280: 259: 252: 2956: 2292: 1916: 636: 722: 2707: 1821: 1572: 1025: 750: 649: 602: 562: 494: 484: 114: 3200: 1547: 1265: 2894: 2729: 2278:

I would appreciate it if you don't edit my signatures, unless something is against the rules about it I don't think its ok to do so.

2094: 1413: 505: 1467:

and you are not. If you put back in my correction, then I could work further on the wording; if not, I have better things to do.

2449:

Another example of zeugma or syllepsis: In the P-stranding talk page thread, I wrote "My posts thereafter contained references to

1796: 1760: 3627: 2243: 1229:, which, I admit, if were directed against me, I would have broke emotionally in pieces. Thank you for defending the article. - 1148:

article. Because the quote is very long relative to the prose in the article, Google is picking this quote out of the article as

510: 413: 2740: 1239: 296: 3358: 3025: 3003: 1011:

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether Ugaritic "t_" was pronounced as or . And whether "g" was a pharyngeal or a velar. --

956: 3343: 578:

picking the first image and just adding an image tag in the new column with the filename. I'd do that in a semi-automated way.

524: 396: 3499: 2562: 1543: 967: 310:. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. -- 3465: 1807: 1745: 1506: 3434: 3217: 3101: 2368: 1991: 1647: 1087: 930: 812: 246: 1911: 1353: 741: 587:

A table of the SVGs would be helpful if it also contained the MesZL codes; otherwise I can create it from your collection.

3349: 2914: 2900: 2121: 2101: 1817: 1790: 1780: 1766: 1533: 266: 3222: 2918: 2627: 546: 99: 3155: 2772: 2540: 2506: 2201: 1679: 307: 91: 3277:

Many of the early English novels were epistolary, and if there was more than one letter-writer, necessarily multi-POV.

2550: 2115: 828:

I meant only to remove the slur on Arabs, but inadvertantly got the whole thread. I'll just leave it as is. Thanks.

745: 3179: 2589: 1387: 1193: 3228: 2407:

I then complained (a) "hurry after" isn't a phrasal verb, and (b) even if it were so construed, I'd correctly hurry

1277: 837: 447: 221: 3446: 3205: 1860: 1492: 1367:. I have linked a few videos containing people pronouncing n+e+m+tm, could you please take a look at them? Thanks, 1335: 1188: 1172: 734: 3246: 2805: 2787: 2105: 970:

of mine reach you? I just wanted to make sure, as, unfortunately, the section has been archived by now. Regards,--

479: 391: 3430: 3097: 2910:

Aha, so it's related to the other thing I had asked about. What a nuisance for you. Thanks for the explanation. ←

2776: 2364: 2181: 1987: 1839: 1643: 1083: 912: 808: 2702: 2651: 2039:

page on the basis of my italian version of the book. Nevertheless in the central part of the book there isn't a

1688: 737: 3195: 3007: 1890: 1885: 1486: 1460: 1302: 1168: 979: 856: 700: 335: 3353: 3331: 2904: 2048: 1134: 1120: 3168: 1833: 1482: 1456: 1272: 933:? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read 823: 620: 452: 194: 2268: 1770: 1109: 3404: 3237:

to 'alphabet' from 'script' (where they have already been moved). So how do you want your vote counted?" –

3113: 3071: 2833: 2567: 2338: 1962: 1618: 1225:(!), is mind-blowing. You deserve this barnstar, as you are a much stronger editor than I am, in resisting 1066: 791: 397: 319: 2287: 1674: 3493: 3416: 3083: 2995: 2947: 2925: 2857: 2594: 2350: 2072: 1974: 1630: 1529: 1358: 1078: 950: 803: 683: 85: 49: 31: 18: 2816: 2535: 1020: 1006: 3623: 3461: 2999: 2841: 2546: 2382: 2166: 1713: 1709: 1139: 935: 529: 75: 861: 3516: 3315: 2845: 2813: 2795: 2734: 2025: 1516:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

886: 667: 241: 90:

If I'm not mistaken I saw in some other place that you've studied linguistics in academy. Isn't it?

3295: 2197: 2133: 1258: 917: 876:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

377:

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the

203: 2677:

Thank-you. It helps me give credit for where it comes from - which is just what I was looking for

2442:(i.e., go inside while ambulating at a pace faster than a walk)? A naïve linguistic theory (read, 736:

you made it seem like Pluto2012 edited that talkpage himself (signature). It can cause confusion.

362:

button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

208:

I've removed all that, hope you don't mind. Different IP range but still the person covered under

2517: 2490:. But there you dwell. Unless and until you prove me otherwise, you're on my "Do not call" list. 1419: 961: 678: 539: 418: 409: 275: 435: 61: 43: 25: 3595: 3452: 2853: 2766: 2698: 2647: 2623: 1881: 1856: 475: 443: 284: 3619: 3576:, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic. 3457: 3392: 3337: 3286:

series of sketches that pokes fun at this idea? I always found them to be incredibly funny.

3059: 2888: 2326: 2043:

section (and so no symbol depicted) at the end of the book (pag. 169) there is a table where

1950: 1907: 1701: 1606: 1502: 1434:

2) "In other words" is wrong, because the second sentence is not a rephasing of the first.

1098: 1054: 842: 779: 351: 292: 218: 145: 2147:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

878: 3470: 3403:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3261: 3070:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2809: 2791: 2558: 2416: 2337:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2264: 2088: 1961:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1848: 1842:

who seem to agree with me that it isn't. I'd revert your change if you have no objections?

1805: 1617:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1537: 1470: 1444: 1326: 1164: 1156: 1104: 1065:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 790:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 324: 2883: 2616:

Place holder From that guy that wrote that one section at the bottom of the Wingding page

1834:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cumulative_voting&diff=prev&oldid=923925354

1253:

it or not, such editors--while effectively expelled from the community--do not need to be

8: 3584: 3489: 3291: 3283: 3011: 2798: 2725: 2688: 2636: 2193: 2022: 1759:

Did you change my signature arrows on purpose? Or is it something your edit function did?

1739: 1670: 1517: 1478: 1452: 1407: 1381: 1349: 1231: 1218: 939:

before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at

908: 852: 728: 718: 498: 490: 461: 431: 2030: 1540:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1217:

I have witnessed surreal cases across Knowledge before, but what happened these days at

346:

button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces

3346: 3327: 3311: 2911: 2897: 2682: 2667: 2585: 2273: 2221: 2118: 2098: 2068: 1870: 1814: 1777: 1763: 1184: 1145: 1130: 1116: 989:

Hi, I see you're knowledgable in semitic languages. I'm working on a draft article for

940: 673: 646: 617: 599: 543: 405: 347: 315: 301: 209: 149: 126: 584:

could become a bigger issue, I could do step 2 in a way that can be easily reproduced.

3374: 3300: 3041: 2978: 2879: 2849: 2822: 2759: 2694: 2643: 2619: 2577: 2511: 2503: 2309: 2283: 2249: 2238: 1933: 1877: 1589: 1563: 1554:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1316: 1125:

Even after five years that's a frustrating conversation to read! :-) Thanks anyway!

1041: 1016: 1002: 975: 766: 471: 439: 370: 355: 343: 339: 2965: 2059:. Do you think that would be better if I cite the italian edition of the book, near 2052: 3591:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the 3423: 3388: 3090: 3055: 2528: 2357: 2322: 1981: 1946: 1903: 1660: 1637: 1602: 1498: 1254: 1247: 1050: 984: 833: 775: 520: 288: 226: 213: 140: 2438:

the house (i.e., encounter it by chance? or crash into it headlong?) or did I run

3611: 3522: 3257: 2871: 2554: 2487: 2260: 1852: 1425: 1322: 707:

Alone would not be enough but just confirm the fact it is well known and admitted

610: 190: 3537:

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as

3231:, where I asked: "Although in this case the proposal would mean moving articles 2964:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

369:

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the

68: 3615: 3485: 3400: 3287: 3270: 3067: 2721: 2334: 2018: 1958: 1754: 1726: 1666: 1614: 1394: 1368: 1345: 1062: 904: 848: 787: 714: 237: 3345:

maybe you could consider posting the reason at the top of your talk page. :) ←

2014: 1202: 3573: 3396: 3323: 3307: 3063: 2893:

I'm curious as to why you sometimes create a new section with a topic of "xx"

2678: 2663: 2581: 2330: 2217: 1954: 1800: 1610: 1521: 1257:

for whatever they did. Let it go, eh? On a lighter note, I hope you're well!

1180: 1160: 1126: 1112: 1058: 783: 706: 628: 575:

adding a column to those tables (or reusing the empty column) for your images

554: 311: 106: 53: 35: 22: 2693:

I did not say it was left-wing, also you shous not reply in hated comments.

3565:

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

3015: 2875: 2279: 2233: 1559: 1555: 971: 896: 427: 378: 365: 2603: 1144:

I want to explain why I removed the long quote from Edward Sapir from the

3238: 3209: 2521: 2004: 1525: 829: 657: 516: 133: 105:

Yes, I have some expertise in ancient Semitic languages and linguistics.

3506: 3407:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3074:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2828: 2341:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2140: 1965:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1832:

Hi there, I saw you stated that cumulative voting is a cardinal method:

1621:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1315:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

1103:

Hello! Love your username by the way. I read an old comment of yours on

1069:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

794:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3384:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3190: 3163: 3119: 3051:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2717: 2319:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1943:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1599:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

181: 3606:

In addition to that introduction, I'd like to note that your comment

3365: 3032: 2896:

and than do a second edit to replace or delete that section header. ←

2301: 1925: 1581: 1341: 1032: 757: 701:

Not a clinical review but good anyway. Jones is a fictional character

273:

Greetings. The issues of notability and original research concerning

233: 157: 3126: 1718:

If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by:

3151: 3136: 2781: 177: 169: 165: 153: 1223:

sockpuppet going so far as to create as nearly as 50 sock accounts

1153:

can allow this, I hope this is ok for you. Thank you, Zephrine.

3252:

add the following message to þe ita page after what’s in brackets

2862: 2762: 2114:

The Help Desk is telling me that its fallen and can't get up. :(

3475: 3420:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3087:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2354:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2153:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

1978:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1721:{{subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~}} 1634:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1424:

I understand all the issues in the first paragraph of the entry

627:

science. (A little similar to Casaubon in Middlemarch, maybe.)

3410:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

3378:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

3077:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

3045:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2344:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1968:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

1624:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1072:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

797:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

538:

Do you need any help with it? I could e.g. include them in the

173: 161: 2462:

adjectival construction, and Webster is silent on the matter.

2313:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1937:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

1290: 330: 1221:, which are on my watchlist, is beyond imagination. To see a 434:, I thought you might be interested in this requested move. ( 1179:"classical language". Did I do the wrong thing removing it? 594:? On my browser, U+12400 looks very different from U+1212C 592:

File:Assyrian cuneiform U1212C MesZL 3 or U12400 MesZL 2.svg

269:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2874:. Whatever your opinion maybe, we need more input on this. 2481:"? Make no mistake: I know of no grammarian who'd identify 1705: 873:

Hello, AnonMoos. Please check your email; you've got mail!

489:

You recently participated in a discussion of the title of

120: 3526:. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and 2545:

I appreciate your comment on my talk page re: my edit of

184:, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! 1762:

Not that it really matters, I'm just wondering. :) <-

1665:

Wow, how did you find that one? Regular expressions? --

1593:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

3391: