User talk:Ikiroid/Archive 8

2762:, which is a bit more recent. Neither one mentions a perfect literacy—I'm wondering if the editor who added that note to the wikipedia article was only counting men, since the male literacy rate is 94.3% (much closer to 100%). In any case, I removed the "near 100%" claim. Regarding Lewis's earlier works, I think you could cite them if you were careful about what you added. Sections about vocabulary should obviously be handled with prudence. If the grammar has remained unchanged between 1953 and 2007, however, I don't see why we should hesitate citing it for such a topic. 31: 3427: 2210:

the features that non-Turkish speakers find either interesting or puzzling. For instance, one of them recently gave some examples of supposed ridiculous coinages by the T Lang Assoc, without even bothering to explain in English why they might be thought ridiculous (I've attempted to remedy that). Of course the same goes for even the standard grammar, which is interestingly different from IE.

791: 563: 3033:

potentially helpful. We could scout out some individual editors who are part of WikiProject Languages for help, but editors are often working on other things. We may simply be going through a period of dead editing—I too am swamped with other things including an upcoming RFA, so I regretfully admit that I'm not of much help at the moment.

1681:

severe it is. Certain high-traffic articles can be indefinitely protected, although that is usually a last resort option. Looking through the history, however, I see only about 3-6 malicious edits per day in the time preceding semi-protection, so it doesn't qualify for being high-traffic. Let it go, and if it all goes to crap report to

3169:

Hello again Cameron. The ge- prefix existed throughout Old English and into Middle English, although its pronunciation was different from its German counterpart. I think it was pronounced like in Old English, if memory serves. By the time Middle English had come into existence, it had been shortened

1680:

Hi Major, I know what you mean about the vandalism impeding cleanup. I checked up on the semi-protection request you made and the subsequent refusal. In terms of temporary protection, I'm inclined to agree with Deskana...however, you can wait out the first 12-24 hours of unprotection and evaluate how

3032:

Cleanup groups like LoC are often backlogged with requests, so it may take them a bit of time to get around to this article. I converted the dialect list into prose, although the writing is pretty basic and could use some improvement. We really need a PR for this, even an automated response could be

2771:

I also cited the portion about the exceptionally low literacy rate before the introduction of the Roman alphabet. The section about vowel harmony is solid, and I assume that you are referring to the section on grammar when you speak of nouns and adjectives. It has good prose, although it is a little

2682:

Yes, the current rate shouldn't be too hard to find (I bet it's lower than you think). But that's only half the job done, because the claim is that previously (pre-1928) the rate was at "Third World levels". Maybe there are estimates from the early years of the Republic (early to mid-1920s, say).

2089:

It is also perfectly normal to have enthusiastic speakers work on a language article. Of course, beware of POV. There are some groups that maintain a sensistive peace with one another but often war over articles. Spend enough time in an article about a religion, war, or culture, and you'll probably

776:

Well ... my head is still spinning. Not so much from the FA promotion as from the vertigo induced by the rotating barnstar you've awarded me! I think you deserve at least equal honours for bringing GR up to scratch, with your tireless improvements & suggestions—& not least for creating the

2227:

It's usually not a problem to have a group of enthusiasts working on the article. Editors like yourself iron out the perspective problems, and peer review and FAC are even more strict than a single editor like yourself. I've read it and I can't find anything wrong, although now that you mention it,

1718:

Yes - seems that Knowledge has changed a bit after Esperanza's closure. We're only supposed to write an encyclopedia and not engage in futile conversations. Hence, I don't edit as much recently - mostly just run the bots and do maintenance stuff. And when it comes to the archiving bots, some people

1669:

Hi, Ikiroid. I'm requesting that the semi-protection for Mother Teresa be extended. The semi-protection, due to expire on 4/14, has worked well; since then we've been able to get about halfway through the extensive efforts needed to upgrade the article to GA status. Unprotecting the article will

3014:

I wonder what's happened: after a month of frenetic activity everything's suddenly gone quiet on this article. Maybe they think it's OK, or perhaps they want it to be stable for a bit. It's certainly improved a lot recently; but the Dialects section, for example, is pretty listy & useless at

2617:

If I remember correctly, I was the one who removed the secion about prefixes. I apologize, I was desperate to trim down the section, and I removed what appeared to be over-specific. Feel free to add it back in. I agree that few editors look at the talkpage—in fact, I think few of the people on the

2209:

The trouble with the Turkish article is that hardly any non-native speakers have been involved in it (apart from one or two Greeks, who may have a family connection with Anatolia). Because of this, & because few of the editors are trained linguists, they tend (naturally enough) to be blind to

2889:

requires cleanup and referencing, and I've been devoting time to that. Anyway, I read over the article again yesterday and I made some minor changes to the introduction. You've done a lot of great work here, though I suspect that the FAC is going to fail due to the loose ends still present in the

1329:

Thanks for your suggestion about joining this Project: I'm flattered. Nevertheless, I don't think I will, as I'm really more interested in languages than writing systems. So why GR? you may ask. Well, I just felt I knew quite a lot about it (though it turned out there was lots more to learn!),

3795:

Hi Ndsg. I'm not a geologist or geographer, but I could understand the prose just fine. You may want to add more about history/politics in the intro, as well as go for at least one inline citation per paragraph. I don't know what topics are supposed to be covered in an article about a geographic

2205:

Leet? Eek! Not for me, I'm afraid. I may have a look at your Phoenician alph, though. Actually, I'm not really looking for new things to copyedit: I've just been looking at the languages I know. I suppose I'm drawn to obscure topics where I don't risk running into too much competition (GR,

3804:

has already done a bit of work on the article and could help you with that too. I suppose he'll know what should be added or removed. The sections on Climate and Ecology lack flow somewhat , in some parts they appear to be listing off facts instead of connecting them. I really like the article

2591:

Hi Nigel. As you can see, I didn't get too carried away with changing the article—Turkish is far from being my forte, and I am blessed with few references on the topic. However, I think I could look up the literacy rate of Turkey in the most recent World Almanac. I wouldn't be surprised if it

798:

I've thanked the following: Ravedave, Clyde Miller, Ideogram, Xhantar, Sumple, Peripitus & DocRock. Have I forgotten anyone? If so, perhaps you could do it for me. I'm not sure whether it would be OK to thank SandyGeorgia for his/her review on the the FAC page—I don't want to commit a

1333:

In fact, having discovered just how much time preparing an article can take, I'm not really sure how much more I'm going to do on WP. Maybe some wikignoming for the time being. As you may see from my contribs, I've been helping an editor improve what is already quite a good article on the

2438:

Hi again Nigel. I've added a section to the intro, and I'll work on the concerns raised above. I had a long Friday, so forgive me while I play catch-up here :-) Looking at the list above, I think I'm going to change my vote in the FAC to a regrettful opppose while I clean up the article.

2821:

The main sections I've worked on are Grammar & Sounds, though I've gnomed a bit in other sections. I narrowly prevented them deleting a nice picture of a road sign at one end of a bridge over the Bosphorus ("Welcome to Europe"), in which I'd managed to find (& link to)

1152:

What is the process for choosing a new featured language? I see a nomination page, but I see no voting or other mechanism for choosing one language over another, and yet you listed Turkish as May's language of the month despite the fact that it was not even on the

2894:, and I have also come across some interesting information regarding the language reforms of the 1920s. Do tell me what article you plan to take on next, you're one of the most hard-working editors here and I'm eager to see where your fancy takes you! Cheers, 2499:

Already looking better. I've done a few bits & pieces, here & there. I've marked the "100% literacy rate" claim with {{fact}}. Your statement about "sentences in their own right" was a bit misleading (a final copula is required), so I've reworded

2151:) to do anything before making a move. I don't think you should rewrite the article either—it's too much work for you to do at this time, and it really doesn't need it anyway. Make a few Botox injections here and there, but don't give it a facelift ;-) 2071:

You bring up a lot of good questions. Regarding your newfound position as copyeditor/PR guy, it's quite a normal process for wikipedians to become advisors and copyeditors as they get more experienced with the community and the system. Think back to

2032:

These are just the sort of nit-picking points that were picked up when we submitted GR to PR & copyediting; & I think it's a shame to see a basically good article spoiled by this lack of attention to detail. I have to agree with many of

2938:

occurred to someone to request help from the League of Copyeditors! They should have done that weeks ago! Now all they need is a PR—though I suppose you could say that the what was intended as an FAC screening has ended up as more of a PR

3282:

I never knew that Russian had something similar. Interesting. I'll check out what the Scandinavian languages have and might consult you again later. I was thinking about leveling the strong verb/weak verb to all weak verbs, kind of like

2960:

I'm not really planning to take on any article in particular: I just happened to get stuck into the Turkish one because I know something about it. I'll have a quick look at Sinhala, though—precisely because I know nothing about it.

2639:

You mentioned earlier that you learned Turkish from a prominent professor at Oxford. Do you have any reference materials from the course that we could cite in it? If you give me the names of the books, I could possibly find them.

1746:

Anyway, back to Esperanza, I feel the all the more disappointed, because it was really ESP that helped me integrate into the community (I'm a bit of a loner and outsider), learn the ropes of Knowledge and deal with stressing

3842:

Yes: it is a beautiful part of the country, but I haven't spent much time there. As it happens, I've flown over it several times in my glider (the quarries generate good thermals in the summer). My home base for flying is

2232:

to look over it, perhaps he could help out with the linguistic evolution and grammar. Personally, agglutinative languages scare the hell out of me, although they do have their advantages (such as a low rate of mutation and

128:

First off, your headings look weird. I would consider rearranging the stuff at the top of your talk page to fix it (unless you like it that way). As to GR, I would reccomend closing the PR, listing as an FAC, and going

3505:

Glad to see you're still active. :) I'm finally (I hope) finishing these off, and I just want to reiterate, belatedly, that I've always appreciated the community's support, and your trust in particular. Thank you. –

3569: 1780: 1403: 954: 258: 155:

Thanks for the pointers. I'll wait for Ndsg to make a response, and then based on his input coupled with yours we'll make a decision. By the way, what do you mean by "headers?" Are you referring to section titles?

1996:

Guru, shmuru ... I'm a bit concerned about the Turkish article, good though it is in some ways. I really think it ought to have gone for PR & copyediting. The prose is odd in places (see my comments on the

701:

As for the colours, I do hope SG is the only objector! The MOS certainly doesn't prohibit the use of colour—let's see what other reviewers (if any) say. As a fallback we could always use the following coding:

2703:, but I'm not sure citing them in this article would add much. He actually tried out various sections of the book on us students. The main textbook we used for learning the language was—you guessed it—his 591:

Sorry, I was on a two day trip and I'm still getting everything back together. I did manage to make one edit on the hotel's wifi network, but naught else. I'll be happy to help elsewhere, now that I'm back.

2010:

Many of the supporters are Turks (some quite young, it appears) who are pleased that their language is in the limelight. Nothing wrong with patriotic pride, of course—but does it make for a good article?

1171:

or I choose it from the nomination page. Originally, when we restarted the portal at the end of August we were the only people interested. I suppose we could set up a formal system—do you have any ideas?

3456:

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of

2707:. We used the 1953 edition, which was at least partly written to improve communication between NATO allies in Korea (there were tables of equivalent ranks in the British & Turkish armed forces). 103:

agree with my idea of closing peer review and simply diving into FAC? Is there anything we should consider first that neither Ndsg nor myself have already thought of? I would appreciate your input.

3018:

The LoC don't seem to have responded with much enthusiasm either. Have you got any bright suggestions? I shall be away for a week or so, & in any case have done all I can for this article. --

2147:

From the looks of it, this article has had a much easier run of copyediting than what we endured with GR. I am a bit disappointed to see that many of the editors wait for one of the wikipedians (

2134:. The examples I gave are taken from the Turkish section of the IPA handbook, so I'll bet my life on this. I've actually gone ahead and cited some stuff in the phonology section with this book. 1664: 3531:

Hey Ikiroid. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA last week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Knowledge alongside you. --

2808:

I've come to the end of my contributions on this one (now, where have I heard that phrase before?). Have you looked at the article recently? I think it's now beginning to come into shape.

130: 2360:): pointless & silly, should be dropped. As for the invented Czechoslovak example ... well, it often comes up in these discussions, so I suppose there's some excuse for including it. 1026: 3068: 875:

have some overlap. So I am answering both of them together. Hope that is not a problem. If you feel any way uncomfortable, just let me know. I will answer them again individually. --

759:? Not really: I think I could defend what I've done, if challenged, on the grounds that it's more a matter of presentation than substance. Anyway, I'll just keep quiet about it! -- 824:

I'm personally delighted that the colour-coding got through. The general recommendation not to use colour is probably a good one; but in this case I think it was clearly justified.

755:

I had sudden misgivings about my reformulation of the tonal spelling rules, which are rather differently expressed from Chao's traditional 9 rules (or whatever it is). A hint of

3833:

Thanks for looking at this. I'm not going to do anything more myself on this article. I agree with you about the Climate section, though: it was the first thing I commented on.

2408:

I've gone into this at some length on your page simply because most of my comments have been ignored on the Talk page! By all means publish my remarks more widely if you want.

435: 1845: 1670:

mean that schoolage anon vandals will once again insert dirty words and well-meaning anons will junk up the article with lists, trivia and the like. Can you help? Thanks

1674: 1019: 3689: 1864: 1499: 1059: 344: 3694: 3178:, and it was used to form past participles. Middle English changed rapidly, partly because it was not the standard language of England at the time, being overruled by 1869: 1511: 1300: 1071: 351: 2019:

As an IPA guru yourself, do you agree that the IPA in the Example poem should have stress marks? And what about the non-standard, informal method used in Sounds (eg

2890:

article. I agree with your earlier assertion that the article needs one or two peer reviews before taking another shot at FA. I still have to migrate the sources to

1504: 1066: 1203: 1031: 922: 2417:

But all this should have been ironed out earlier by proper PR & copyediting. The problem is really one of their own making in rushing this through to FAC. --

319: 3677: 3641: 3634: 3413: 2119:

In terms of IPA, I do think that the text should posess some suprasegmental features. In standard IPA, accents aren't used for stress— an upper dash <ˈ: -->

1857: 1487: 1468: 1047: 1014: 339: 2758:

Hi again! After you read this, check my response further down on the other thread too. I have a 2002 report of the literacy rate in Turkey, and it's 82%. The

3665: 3658: 3447:! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a 2380:. The topic could be dealt with more succinctly (but at the same time more comprehensively) by using something along the lines of the examples I suggested : 3521: 657:

It's OK if we don't get a large amount of votes, articles are basically promoted based on quality, not the direction of the FAC discussion. Take a look at

3682: 1492: 1054: 3781:

for the second time. I've done a fair amount of copyediting & suggested improvements over the last 2 months or so. It can't be far off FA, IMO. --

2776:

s conjugation in order to trim down the section. Please tell me what you think, and feel free to revert any inappropriate changes that I might've made.

2596:

100%—the USA has a literacy rate of 95%, I believe the UK's is 98%, and most of Europe is above 97%. Some nations do report having a 100% literacy rate.

3778: 3646: 1840: 1475: 327: 3724: 3670: 3653: 3629: 1899: 1852: 1543: 1480: 1101: 1042: 658: 383: 332: 543:. Otherwise we may get no reactions at all to poor old GR! To save time, would you mind posting something on those project Talk pages? Thanks. -- 917: 3393: 3384: 3360: 3331: 3291: 3265: 3214: 3201: 2172:

is taking it to FA. I've done some citing work, but a third pair of eyes would be good. Also, I'm doing my own little side project of expanding

3556: 1767: 1154: 245: 3764: 1939: 441:

I don't think we've met before, although I saw that you removed some vandalism from my userpage. Thanks for taking the time to do it. Cheers,

423: 233: 197: 175: 146: 1704: 1593: 1463: 1390: 1191: 1141: 941: 911: 936: 777:

splendid image at the top of the article. Quite a few other editors made extremely useful suggestions, & I shall thank them personally.

3868:

It all sounds very wonderful. For now, I've never been out of the country. But, if I ever get to England, I'll try to come visit there :-)

3435: 551: 503: 475: 1719:

seem to be address me in a demanding tone as if I was employed here and paid some bucks for a 24/7 technical assistance. <eyeroll/: -->

1286: 1258: 926: 3754: 2076:—my primary work was acquainting you with style and policy; you did the research and made seven times as many edits to the article as me. 1929: 1761: 1583: 1131: 413: 3148: 2103: 895: 864: 540: 3887: 3855: 3824: 3052: 3000: 2969: 2913: 2868: 2795: 2659: 2570: 2482: 2458: 2425: 2257: 2195: 2058: 1987: 680: 636: 611: 3728: 3245:

All of the above sound shifts occur with /je/ in languages. The first example occurred in Russian, which is why the letter <ё: -->

1903: 1547: 1105: 387: 2749: 1723: 1383: 1374: 854: 811: 767: 578: 3797: 3312:

It's always a pleasure to help you out. Feel free to ask me any more questions you might have, and good luck with your language!

661:, for example, which only received three support votes. I think the amount of discussion provided by Clyde will pull it through. 2992:

PS Sorry: the Sinhala article defeated me—too many question-marks for the letters my system can't handle! I need a rest ... --

2693:

example of prefixes in Turkish. It's also fairly unique to Turkish: it's as if we said "wup-white" or "bam-black" in English.

1726:(and only, unless I missed something) RfA. Thought of a re-run? I honestly believe you'd make a great mop-wielder. :-) Cheers, 1225: 1161: 3720: 3716: 1895: 1891: 1539: 1535: 1097: 1093: 888: 379: 375: 2270:) has been followed up by anyone. If I had to single out a section that I feel unhappy about, it would probably be Grammar: 516:

I responded, but you might want to know that asking someone to respond in an FAC is usually frowned upon. Do it with care.--

1659: 724:

I shall be away Weds-Sun (returning Easter Day), so hope you'll be able to ward off hostile criticism over that period. --

2741:. I hope they're now easier to follow: it would be useful to get some feedback from a non-specialist such as yourself. -- 2673: 2238:

But getting back on the topic of article cleanup, is there any specific section of the article in which you see problems?

3026: 2727: 1578:; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315 3365:

If you do keep it, reserve it in Germanically-derived weak verbs. Use an ending like -te or -ede for Scandinavian ones.

3612: 3115: 1823: 1446: 997: 301: 2538:

I get the impression that very few of the contributors to the Turkish article ever look at the Talk page—do you agree?

2221: 1962: 1157:. If you plan on responding here, please leave a note on my talk page—otherwise I'm likely to forget to check back! 525: 3882: 3819: 3379: 3326: 3260: 3196: 3047: 2908: 2790: 2654: 2477: 2453: 2252: 2190: 1982: 1699: 1356: 1281: 1220: 1186: 675: 606: 498: 455: 228: 170: 117: 3163: 1737: 2518: 1254: 536: 3789: 3077: 746:, & has struck out his (her?) comments on that score. Let's see if anyone else feels that strongly about the 3805:

though, as well as the subject. It looks like a beautiful country—is it as nice as the photos make it out to be?

1319: 460: 3551: 3356:

The Scandinavian languages seem to have lost it, but I'm thinking about keeping /jə/, does that seem believable?

1574:

Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in

1361: 1247: 1197: 122: 3476:

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback

732: 2562:, "snow-white")? It's probably worth a mention: I was only objecting to the excessive number of examples. -- 3711: 3138: 2759: 1886: 1530: 1088: 370: 134: 86: 3481: 834: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2738: 1743:

I've been putting the reply to your post for too long, I guess and eventually nearly forgot about it. :)

3568: 2618:

talkpage edit the article! We're dealing with two different camps of editors who do not cooperate well.

2095: 1779: 1402: 953: 862: 257: 133:

to get a few more copyeditors to take a look at it during or before the FAC. You seem to almost be one

38: 1950:

Glad you like it. I suppose you can guess who's been wkgnoming away at this. There are clues on the

1606: 1147: 3134:

Hi Iikroid, I will be more than happy to nominate you, just let me know when you want to go for it.

2733:... well, it is now! I've condensed & rationalized some sections of the article, in particular 2339:. Lewis makes frequent use of this device (which is not,of course, used in the normal orthography). 3461:, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, 3231:. Also, have you considered having the prefix undergo a soundshift? For example, /je/ could become 1945: 628:

No problem! I left a note on the romanization pages too, for good measure. No response yet ... --

3526: 3541: 2827: 2734: 1324: 484:

I'll keep your page on my watchlist, and perhaps someday I'll be able to repay you the favor :-)

3210:

So would it be believable that a /je/ suffix would exist in my Anglisch, parlleling German /ge/?

2148: 1750:

As of your RfA, yes - I planned on nominating you and in this case I will gladly put a co-nom.

1642: 521: 193: 142: 2689:

I think I will replace a couple of examples of intensification, because this is virtually the

3516: 3477: 3182:. So, it is no surprise that it died out by modern english. I hope I answered your quesiton! 3179: 2885:'Lo again Nigel! I'm sorry this post is so belated—I've been busy both on-wiki and off-wiki. 2099: 1998: 1951: 1599: 3770: 3390: 3357: 3288: 3211: 3160: 3058: 871:

Hi. Thanks for the heads-up about the questions. However, I feel the questions by you and

8: 3760:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 3545: 3458: 2173: 1935:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1710: 1589:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1315: 1137:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 907: 884: 471: 419:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1342:

season is just starting again here in the UK, & I want to devote some time to that!

535:

is a FAC? If it's acceptable, I would suggest posting a brief notice to that effect on

3734: 3451: 3284: 1909: 1553: 1243: 1111: 393: 2843:

As always, I'd value your reactions to my input: does it make things reasonably clear?

3878: 3874: 3815: 3811: 3375: 3371: 3322: 3318: 3256: 3252: 3192: 3188: 3043: 3039: 2904: 2900: 2891: 2857: 2786: 2782: 2772:

long and needs a few more citations. I removed a few of the more complex examples of

2650: 2646: 2473: 2469: 2449: 2445: 2248: 2244: 2186: 2182: 1978: 1974: 1754: 1730: 1695: 1691: 1634: 1277: 1273: 1231:

I'm suprised it wasn't caught sooner actually. Most articles like that are tagged by

1216: 1212: 1182: 1178: 739: 695: 671: 667: 602: 598: 517: 494: 490: 451: 447: 224: 220: 189: 166: 162: 138: 113: 109: 47: 17: 2399:

This is a fundamental aspect of Turkish syntax, & should be dealt with properly.

3508: 3492: 3462: 3415: 2886: 2169: 2034: 1671: 1380: 1371: 1367: 1232: 1158: 511: 429: 2376:/"verbals" (ie participles). This section was, I think, more or less lifted from 2050:

going to do is rewrite the whole thing. I've already done that once this year! --

333:

WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"

3801: 2683:

The problem is to justify the assertion about a "dramatic increase in literacy".

2377: 2073: 1968:

Heh heh, I see. Nice work. It appears you are becoming a guru of language pages!

925:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

532: 188:

1. cool you have my support 2. the table of contents is what I was refering to.--

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3852: 3786: 3738: 3091: 3023: 2997: 2966: 2865: 2746: 2724: 2567: 2422: 2218: 2055: 1959: 1913: 1614: 1557: 1379:

I did my best to address your suggestions. Would you be in for a second round?

1353: 1309: 1294: 1168: 1115: 901: 878: 872: 851: 808: 764: 729: 633: 575: 548: 468: 397: 94: 1682: 1654: 1649: 1236: 1370:

article. I would appreciate if you could take a look and give some comments

1330:

having read most of Chao's work—& thought I could contribute something.

3870: 3807: 3771: 3367: 3314: 3248: 3184: 3035: 2896: 2778: 2642: 2465: 2441: 2240: 2178: 1970: 1751: 1727: 1687: 1335: 1269: 1208: 1174: 930: 756: 663: 594: 486: 443: 216: 158: 105: 2266:

Well, I've left quite a few comments on the Talk page, only one of which (

3761: 3154: 3145: 3135: 3129: 2711:

was completely re-written in 1989, of course incorporating material from

2335:, "of our grape", would be easier to analyse & understand if written 1936: 1590: 1469:

Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election

1138: 420: 2856:

BTW It would be useful if you could copy the necessary biblio across to

3844: 531:

OK: point taken. But is there any reason not to mention the fact that

1476:

Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus

3848: 3782: 3228: 3019: 2993: 2962: 2861: 2742: 2720: 2563: 2555:

BTW Was it you who removed the entire section on intensive prefixes (

2418: 2229: 2214: 2091: 2051: 1955: 1685:. I have it on my watchlist, so I'll help catch anything suspicious. 1575: 1349: 1306:

Hi, my RfA has been successful. Thanks a lot for your support. :) --

847: 804: 760: 725: 629: 571: 544: 3796:

location—perhaps you could get some help about content coverage at

3602: 3067: 1858:

News and notes: Knowledge television mention makes news, milestones

1813: 291: 3753: