User talk:Doric Loon/Archive 2009

AfD nomination of Clì Gàidhlig

I have nominated Clì Gàidhlig, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clì Gàidhlig. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Pyrrhus16 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Traffic paddle

A tag has been placed on Traffic paddle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration of Hebrew

Hi, could you refer me to your source for the transliteration key you used in Waw-consecutive? Thanks, Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That was Angr. I did a preliminary version with a very makeshift transliteration, but he corrected to a more academic one. So you'd have to ask him, I'm afraid. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Tag Questions

Hey. Sorry if this is a bit after you posted, I've just finally merged my accounts and realised I had mail here. I'm not really sure about whether 'on can be considered an auxiliary verb - it's usually followed by the inflected form of the verb, and so is probably more of a particle. YngNghymru (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

English grammar

As a frequent (>20 edits) contributor to English verbs, would you like to weigh in at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see my last post in the section Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting. I've created a stub for the history page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Academic job market

I have nominated Academic job market, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

English Verb - rewriting

Hi Doric Loon.

I posted a few comments on your 'English Verb' article(s), and then realised that I was rather arrogantly proposing rewrites (or even replacements with articles by me!) to somebody who (a) clearly knew what he was talking about and (b) was a far more experienced Wikipedian than I. So, I thought I would get in touch with you more directly than via a general discussion page.

In my opinion (for what little that may be worth) your presentation of the English verb is very traditional. That in itself is not a negative criticism, but I feel that an encyclopaedia (from the spelling of that word you can see that I am also, in some ways, a traditionalist - and British to boot) should (a) at least acknowledge the existence of current thoughts, (b) cite some modern grammarians and (c) give a broader picture.

In my own work on the English verb, the heart of which is unusable on Wikipedia because it approaches original research, I have learnt a lot from, among others, Douglas Biber et al, Marianne Celce--Murcia & Diane Larsen-Freeman, Sylvia Chalker, R A Close, Renaat Declerck, Michael Lewis, Martin Parrott, George Yule, Randolph Quirk et al, etc, and even such old-timers as Hornby, Jespersen, Kruisinga, Onions, Palmer, Poutsma, Sweet, etc. I feel quite strongly that some of their views have a place in an article on 'The English Verb'.

My original idea was to rewrite the whole article and then simply put it on as a replacement for yours (forgive the audacity of a novice Wikipedian). Now I have abandoned that presumption. However, I still feel that I have something to offer that could enhance the article. How would you feel about a private discussion? I would be happy to submit my rewrites to you for you comments before presenting them even on the discussion page.

I look forward to hearing from you at some time.

Best wishes

--gramorak (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gramorak, well I am not propriatorial about the article, so if you have contributions to make, that is great. If you really want to do a complete rewrite of a page which is already quite well developed, it is a good idea to do it on a mirror page on your own userspace and then invite comments. The present representation is not THAT traditional - for example, that rather neat table of three tenses by four aspects supported by the use of modern terms like "present perfect" to suggest that this tense is actually a perfective aspect of the present, does represent advances in thinking in the last twenty years. What I would accept, though, is that the overall presentation draws heavily on the language and representation of TEFL. I think this is not a bad thing, but there are other perspectives too. Please tell me more about what you think is missing. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Split infinitive

My feeling was that the section was not taking sides on whether split infinitives are acceptable in English, but rather the statement "certainly, it is clear that dislike of the split infinitive does not originate from Latin" is perhaps too strong and takes sides specifically with regard to the argument from classical language. It's a strong rejection of a widely held, if probably false, view. It's hard to know to how far wikipedia should take its neutrality, but perhaps that paragraph should accommodate the view that although the argument from Latin did not motivate the original prohibition, it may be a psychological motivation of some who support the prohibition now.

I'll give rewording it a go, but I don't really like messing too much with good, well written articles. Alboran (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Graeme Dunnottar 2009.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Graeme Dunnottar 2009.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright statement has now been provided. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zarfat

The article Zarfat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No improvement over a definition in over a week. Not seeing how this will meet guidelines for inclusion.

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. RadioFan (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)