• Former talk archived to User talk:AnonMoos/Archive1, by popular request. AnonMoos 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Now also User talk:AnonMoos/Archive2... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Third archive: User talk:AnonMoos/Archive3 -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I'm not mistaken I saw in some other place that you've studied [shemic] linguistics in academy. Isn't it? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have some expertise in ancient Semitic languages and linguistics. AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a)) to your friends' talk pages.

I've removed all that, hope you don't mind. Different IP range but still the person covered under WP:PERUNBAN. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 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 :) clsc (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at Talk:Reality-based community.
Message added 04:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Greetings. The issues of notability and original research concerning Reality-based community were raised on that article's talk page. Please join the discussion there instead of simply removing the tags from the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Bring the Jubilee, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AnonMoos,

Since you participated in the recent WP:RM on the Free City of Cracow, I thought you might be interested in this requested move. (Talk:Kraków uprising) Genealogizer (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cracow zl/oty

Hi AnonMoos,

Since you participated in the Free City of Cracow RM, I want to let you know about an RM on Talk:Kraków zl/oty.

Genealogizer (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently participated in a discussion of the title of Free City of Cracow. A similar discussion is now being held at Talk:Grand Duchy of Cracow if you care to participate. --  AjaxSmack  02:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...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. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impressive work, your collection!* Do you need any help with it? I could e.g. include them in the List of cuneiform signs. — Sebastian 06:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 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... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

1. adding a column to those tables (or reusing the empty column) for your images
2. 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.

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

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

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, File:Assyrian cuneiform U1212C MesZL 3 or U12400 MesZL 2.svg? On my browser, U+12400 looks very different from U+1212C ¬. — Sebastian 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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? — Sebastian 06:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 science. (A little similar to Casaubon in Middlemarch, maybe.) AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. — Sebastian 01:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have opened an ANI thread to continue the concerns from this thread.
 -- Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the source that you may look for. or at least enough to cite his name.

This one too

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

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

...

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With this edit [1] you made it seem like Pluto2012 edited that talkpage himself (signature). It can cause confusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant only to remove the slur on Arabs, but inadvertantly got the whole thread. I'll just leave it as is. Thanks. µydei'*s (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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".Alhanuty (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Alhanuty (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AnonMoos,

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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional 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.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, -- Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, did that comment of mine reach you? I just wanted to make sure, as, unfortunately, the section has been archived by now. Regards,--Neufund (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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 all this be interpreted? --Tom 144 (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether Ugaritic "t_" was pronounced as [Error using ((IPA symbol)): "th" not found in list] or [Error using ((IPA symbol)): "S" not found in list]. And whether "g" was a pharyngeal or a velar. --Tom 144 (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Love your username by the way. I read an old comment of yours on William Chomsky's talk page 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 [2], 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. Levivich (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even after five years that's a frustrating conversation to read! :-) Thanks anyway! Levivich (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to explain why I removed the long quote from Edward Sapir from the Classical language article. Because the quote is very long relative to the prose in the article, Google is picking this quote out of the article as the 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 can allow this, I hope this is ok for you. Thank you, Zephrine. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephrine (talk o contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 "classical language". Did I do the wrong thing removing it? Zephrine (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I have witnessed surreal cases across Wikipedia before, but what happened these days at Classical languages, which are on my watchlist, is beyond imagination. To see a sockpuppet going so far as to create as nearly as 50 sock accounts(!), is mind-blowing. You deserve this barnstar, as you are a much stronger editor than I am, in resisting their attacks , which, I admit, if were directed against me, I would have broke emotionally in pieces. Thank you for defending the article. - <x> SilentResident <x> (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 it or not, such editors--while effectively expelled from the community--do not need to be publically humiliated for whatever they did. Let it go, eh? On a lighter note, I hope you're well! ----SerialNumber54129 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greek-Cross-small-.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi sir Iam a team member of Colors from Wikipedia. I request can you created articles about our upcoming shows like, Choti Sardaarni , Vish: A Poisonous Story And Vidya if you created that Colors TV will always thank Full to you DreamMann (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for answering my question on the talk page. I have linked a few videos containing people pronouncing n+e+m+tm, could you please take a look at them? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, thanks anyway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand all the issues in the first paragraph of the entry Borromean rings. 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.

1) unconnected is wrong - the correct term is unlinked

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

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 sentence.

As a professional mathematician, this is a discouraging experience - to try and help Wikipedia and then have it undone. Feel free to try and understand the points I made and to make the corrections. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfdavis (talk o contribs) 00:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 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. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfdavis (talk o contribs) 21:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Higher Superstition, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Andrew Ross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, how did you find that one? Regular expressions? --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello AnonMoos. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 project page, and add your name to the participants. If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: ((subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~)) Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you change my signature arrows on purpose? Or is it something your edit function did?[3] Not that it really matters, I'm just wondering. :) <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Got it. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 07:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. What's the deal here? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I detect a trend here. :) <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 13:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I saw you stated that cumulative voting is a cardinal method: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cumulative_voting&diff=prev&oldid=923925354

I had some discussion with people on electionscience.org who seem to agree with me that it isn't. I'd revert your change if you have no objections?

Cheers, D -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Douginamug (talk o contribs) 22:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 of words that have no rhymes at all. KelpTheGreat (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now responded to you here:

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

Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello A. I saw your mention of Sheridan's The Critic at the RDH so I though I'd leave a link to the 1982 production 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. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've modified asa'pili page on the basis of my italian version of the book. Nevertheless in the central part of the book there isn't a munu section (and so no symbol depicted) at the end of the book (pag. 169) there is a table where munu is depicted. The table is the same of this image (from this page) where the fourth symbol is munu. Do you think that would be better if I cite the italian edition of the book, near munu symbol? --Guaspito (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. -- 00:03, 1 June 2021 Sabaaslman43

...this,[4] 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. :( <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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?

The Help Desk is telling me that its fallen and can't get up. :( [5] <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 22:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this 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, Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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? – Joe (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, your edit here 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. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.★Trekker (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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 they 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 hurried after they who left," it's "I hurried after they who left wherein "hurry after" is a transitive phrasal verb.

I then complained (a) "hurry after" isn't a phrasal verb, and (b) even if it were so construed, I'd correctly hurry after "them" who left, not after "they" who left. To which my instructor replied, "Look up zeugma and syllepsis for yourself and see how it applies to "after they who left", 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 subject of "they ... left" and part of the object, "they who left."

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 run into the house (i.e., encounter it by chance? or crash into it headlong?) or did I run into a house (i.e., go inside while ambulating at a pace faster than a walk)? A naïve linguistic theory (read, traditional linguistics) 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.

Another example of zeugma or syllepsis: In the P-stranding talk page thread, I wrote "My posts thereafter contained references to postpositional particle." 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 adverb. 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 thereafter 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 adjectival construction, and Webster is silent on the matter.

Back to my example: Is it an adjectival "My posts thereafter contained references to postpositional particle? Or, is it "My posts thereafter contained references to postpositional particle"? Make no mistake: I know of no grammarian who'd identify thereafter 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 User:Doric Loon. But there you dwell. Unless and until you prove me otherwise, you're on my "Do not call" list.

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 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 run into?" iteration.

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. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, was that some script acting up? Cheers ❖ _hugarheimur 12:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your comment on my talk page re: my edit of United Nations Honour Flag and have left a reply there. Truthanado (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AnonMoos, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Akkadian language 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. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Place holder From that guy that wrote that one section at the bottom of the Wingding page (HelpmePlsWhy) HelpmePlsWhy (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Red Director (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 it's sources. (20040302 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Thank-you. It helps me give credit for where it comes from - which is just what I was looking for 20040302 (talk)

I did not say it was left-wing, also you shous not reply in hated comments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 text and history question 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 textualism (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. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya! I'm not quite sure what happened here 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 🏳️‍⚧️ in my signature to ³xmf., and the en-dash (–) 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. Cheers, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You changed my username 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 (לילך5) discuss 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again in your next post.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Pleistocene rewilding, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello friend,

I would like to ask for your help and thoughts on: this file's deletion request. Whatever your opinion maybe, we need more input on this. Sodacan (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious as to why you sometimes create a new section with a topic of "xx"[6] and than do a second edit to replace or delete that section header. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha, so it's related to the other thing I had asked about. What a nuisance for you. Thanks for the explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Trinity-Parish-Jersey-Coat-of-Arms.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:Trinity-Parish-Jersey-Coat-of-Arms.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

AnonMoos,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023. – _•Raven  ^.talk 04:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... at WT:NCWS#RFC on alphabet definition, where I asked: "Although in this case the proposal would mean moving articles back to 'alphabet' from 'script' (where they have already been moved). So how do you want your vote counted?" – _•Raven  ^.talk 04:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(which looks like a ŋ with a loop) or a ng ligature GabeNugget (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Just curious, but have you ever seen the SNL series of sketches that pokes fun at this idea? I always found them to be incredibly funny. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 citations.Wjhonson (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 well.Wjhonson (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since someone else asked about it,[7] maybe you could consider posting the reason at the top of your talk page. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]