Jump to content

User talk:CJGB

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Ben venite! Le interlingua salva le mundo.Viva le revolution de interlingua! Libertate o morite!

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar
None

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome!

--Jondel 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Le magnifico!

Alteras linguas

[edit]

Salute!Sape tu altere linguas? Io Proba studiar latino e francese. Existe altere linguas artificial de latine moderne? Habe tu probate usar iste lingua apud parlantes de espaniol o portugese? Amicalmente,--Jondel 14:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jondel! Ultra anglese, io parla germano satis ben, e francese a un nivello medie. Io cognosce alco de italiano, e in le remote passato studiava latino. Si il ha altere linguas artificial basate super latino. Un massa de illos. Interlingua me place le plus perque le philosophia detra illo es un combination san de realismo e idealismo, le methodologia per le qual on lo construeva es ben refinate. Super toto illo es un artefacto bellissimo. Io ha usate lo oralmente con hispano- e italophonos, con satis successo.--Chris 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just testing this out

[edit]

Hi

Esperanto population

[edit]

Hi CJ,

Could you restore the Eo pop again? I've hit my 3RR limit.

Thanks, kwami 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-neutral pronoun

[edit]

I'm sorry, but your change [1] makes things less clear. "ĝi corresponds to it, even though Zamenhof recommended using ĝi in cases of unstated gender" only makes sense to me if I assume that it can not be used for unstated gender. That can't be what you meant, can it? Common Man 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said in normal Esperanto usage. That's my understanding... gxi is theoretically available for a gender-neutral pronoun, but no-one (or hardly anyone) uses it that way. That's why you have ri-ists. I'm not an expert, so feel free to call me on that. Also, maybe the facts could be phrased better.--Chris 19:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's much better now! Common Man 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Incoherent Rantings and Ravings Confuse Jondel

[edit]

Hi CJGB( and Chris ) Uh do you have blackouts and reports that you were writing articles which you don't recognize ?  :) It seems like there are two persons Chris and CJGB at the criticism of the Interlingua article discussion page. --Jondel 06:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I change my mind once in a while. But unless you tell me specifically what you mean, I can't really respond --Chris 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to be a jest. It's just that youre using two names (specially in your reply to the criticisms of the interlingua page).--Jondel 00:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. I don't know why Wikipedia does that.

dictionaries

[edit]

The dictionary at www.interlingua.com yesterday was down. There is a wiki dictionary which I am thinking of updating. (tamben, etc)--Jondel 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think the www.interlingua.com dictionary is back up. What do you think of the new layout of their site?
There is a section for 'juniors ' which is very good. I wonder if it can be come popular among very young people(?). Interlingua really should be taught in schools. Perfect for enabling learning other Romance languages as well as a lingua franca. Sometimes the dictionary doesn't seem to function. The dictionary references the section which is on grammar which is ok. There are some idomatic expressions/tword words like 'of course'; how can we do a search on this. Is it possible to put quotation marks to search for the exact phrase? Results show one for 'of' and one for 'cause'. Perhaps to enable more interest, a lot more introductions in 'English' and grammar in English would be better? I can understand through Spanish but what about the juniors(kids)?--Jondel 04:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=un peticion del dictionario

[edit]

Salut ! Totes va bon apud tu?

1)(in le site de interlingua) Voleva io studiava mais non poteva vider le portion alto. Per example, non pote vider le definition de to, at, since , from, etc.

http://members.optus.net/~ado_hall/interlingua/gi/grammatical_words/a_-_d.html#

2) Volerea vider le definition de 'Philippines' como Philippinas si ille possible. Iam habeva contactite in iste sitio. Amicalmente, --Jondel 08:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion needed on BC page

[edit]

Hi. I see you've been one of the people monitoring the British Columbia page; I picked you at random or almost-random (because you'd done some copyedits). Some bozo at 70.***.***.*** has been stripping the article of its Wikilinks. I don't know how to do the revert, and I have to rush out the door right away, but thought I'd give a heads-up to another Wikian about the apparently vandalism. If you can, or you know how to work the reversion process, please do the reversion. The last valid version would appear to be my own edit from a couple of days ago, after which Mr 70.x started doing his thing.

Hi Skookum (there's a British Columbian user name!). I reverted 70.x's edits. I don't know if he was a vandal or just a hamhanded newbie.

silentio in le foro

[edit]

On habe silentio in le foro in le dies recente. Espere io que non habe io vexava alicun. Forsan debe io que meliorar mi interlingua.

There is a lot of silence in the ia mail these days, I hope I didn't piss off anyone. Maybe I should improve my interlingua.--Jondel 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Io lo dubita. Tal pausas in le conversation eveni de tempore a tempore. Io mesme esseva satis preoccupate con mi labores professional.--Chris 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bon. Va continuar mi articulos in le ia wikipedia e mi labores professional tamben.--Jondel 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging File:Cjgb temp.jpg

[edit]
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cjgb temp.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dethomas, I have the name and address of the copyright holder and am attempting to get permission to use the image in Wikipedia. However, if you want to delete it for, that's fine; I'll upload it again if and when I get permission. --Chris 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block

[edit]

Unfortunately, when an IP address is blocked due to vandalism, this does not only affect anonymous IP edits, but also all registered users who happen to share that IP address (even long-established known-good users, even administrators). That doesn't make sense, but it's the way the software works, and there's nothing I or any other administrator can do about it. -- Curps 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem; however, if it becomes too much of a burden to me, it will certainly drive me out of the Wikipedia project.--Chris 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've unblocked the IP for now. Sorry about this, but it's probably going to happen again until we can fix the underlying software problem (and when I say "we," I mean someone else who understands things I don't begin to). Would you be willing to talk to someone in charge and see if there's anything that can be done to reduce bad-faith use of that IP? Chick Bowen 04:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Name distribution.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. nixie 11:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you learn Interlingua?

[edit]

Was it a website or what?Cameron Nedland 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a copy of my reply on your user talk page too.
I learned about Interlingua from reading Usenet posts by a Swedish fellow named Kjell Rehnström. I was amazed by how well I could read it with a bit of practice. Then I browsed through a copy of Interlingua Grammar that I found at my local library, and found an online version of the Concise English-Interlingua dictionary. (There are links to web versions of both on the main Interlingua site: [2].) Then I started posting texts (original and translations) in the main Interlingua mailing list, INTRLNG. Before long I was connected to the world of Interlingua.--Chris 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nosty

[edit]

Chris, re my attitude the past few day -- I'm not normally that acerbic, it was just a few bad days (life happens, I guess), and I apologise. In any case, how about if the three of us, you, me and PL, work on the article together rather than as potential adversaries. I've read a number of the articles to which you contributed, and it seems that you are a very knowledgable editor. So, how about if we work together on Nosty? BTW: you're right re Interlingua: it is surprisingly easy to read. •Jim62sch• 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu pensa scriber un articulo super Nostradamus in Interlingua? •Jim62sch• 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Il es possibile que io va scriber un breve summario super N. pro le Wikipedia de interlingua – ma isto exige de tempore.

Chris, thanks for the message. I wouldn't mind seeing a few areas expanded either, come to think of it. One note, PL is an author of a few well-selling Nosty books, so he does know a good bit, and is fluent in middle French. This does not, of course, mean that he is the sole authority on Nostradamus (he isn't) but it's worth bearing in mind -- more as a way of understanding how he thinks, etc. BTW: was my Interlingua above OK, or is there a more specific way of framing questions? (It's a rather interesting con-lang, and to me, a bit more accessable than Esperanto). Take care, •Jim62sch• 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salute, Jim. "Tu pensa (a) scriber un articulo..." es possibile. Pro render le question plus explicit, on pote inverter le ordine de parola – "Pensa tu a scriber..." – o prefixar le particula interrogatori an (o esque, un synonyme) – "An tu pensa a scriber..."

Pope Pius XII images

[edit]

Sorry I had to revert your removal. This has been discussed previously and there was a consensus for keeping the images. Please do not try to impose such changes without first discussing them and obtaining consensus. savidan(talk) (e@) 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't think it's an appropriate image, at least with the current caption, but I won't delete without discussion.--Chris 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually intended to explain that revert on the talk, but had real life issues. I'll do so right now. As for the quote, I must disagree. If you take a look at Wikiquote, you'll see that we could include 80 such quotes. There are a few in the article right now which are from extremely notable sources, and even those should eventually be condensed and summarized further. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll show you the Wikipedia policy that says not to add {unreferenced} templates to sentences which have snowflake's chance in hell of having references added to them if you show me the policy which says that anyone may add unreferenced material to featured articles and expect it to remain there for 48 hours. ;) savidan(talk) (e@) 18:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please either propose your rewrite of the orphan section soon or at least keep the discussion moving on the talk. If you really don't have the time to spend on the article for the next few weeks, you really shouldn't insist on such a vaguely established pov dispute. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poor get poorer?

[edit]

Hi, I'm responding to your comment on Talk:The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Dr. Sang Hun Lee, in his Critique of "the Law of Increasing Poverty", wrote:

History after Marx plainly proves that this law is erroneous. The economy of advanced capitalism has made great progress, and national income has increased tremendously. The increase of wealth has come about instead of the increase of poverty.
This is because all production elements, especially machinery, are variable capital and capitalists can gain much profit, even though they raise wages.
The problem left unsolved is whether or not proper distribution of profit is performed. For this purpose, enterprise ethics should be established as a part of the spiritual reformation.

For example, I have a wristwatch which keeps very accurate time. It costs only $10, which is about 2 hours work at minimum wage. 120 years ago, a gentleman could pawn his watch and live comfortably for 3 to 6 months.

I can send a message to Japan or Korea, and get an answer the same day – virtually for free (email). How much would this have cost a century ago? The telegraph was so expense that people wrote in a cramped, abbreviated style.

And don't even got me started on drugs (even my favorites like aspirin and ibuprofen) and sanitation and tranportation, etc.

Hmm, sorry, is this covered somewhere else? :-) --Uncle Ed 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific

[edit]
I guess nobody understands "pacific" anymore

Sigh. Probably a good call, but... sigh. Waitak 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove valid references for no reason

[edit]

Please do not remove valid references for no reason. It may be considered vandalism. — Dunc|☺ 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:#3RR]]

[edit]

Please keep in mind [[WP:#3RR]] at William A. Dembski. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverts at Dembski

[edit]

Thanks. What am I on, revert 2?

Um, 4. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No way, I provided new material for the passage, which Jim and Duncharris have reverted without discussion. Quite blatantly in violation of the Code of Conduct.--CJGB (Chris) 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these 3 guys do that quite a bit. They seem to think that certain articles require their approval for all changes, and even dragged me into an arbitration about this when I wouldn't knuckle under. I'll review your changes. --Uncle Ed 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your edits, and they all seem okay. Nothing deserving of a "vandalism rollback". But the rules here limit YOU to 3 reverts per 24-hour day. And it's better to keep that down to 2 or preferably 1. If they refuse to discuss their reverts, ask me for help. I used to be an admin, and I know how the system works. --Uncle Ed 20:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fanning the flames again, eh Ed? You know what the rules are: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention." Rather than mislead Chris with bullshit, why not be upfront and honest witth him. If he understands the rules, he's muchh less likely to violate them, however, with you whispering lies in his ear, he's likely to run into further problems.
Also Ed, your edit summary violated WP:NPA -- shall I post a warning on your page? BTW: given the RfAr, you'd think you'd be on your best behaviour, not your worst. •Jim62sch• 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying civilly that some users reverted without discussion is not a violation. FM himself has said that describing someone's behavior isn't uncivil. --Uncle Ed 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, quit fighting on my page. As I see it no-one has been terribly uncivil in this latest Dembski thing. I made a general complaint about the article's editors showing complacency and unconscious bias with regard to sourcing. Fair comment, impersonal, and far from harsh, I would say. I also accused two editors – including you, Jim – of violating Point 7 of the Wikipedia Code of Conduct. That seems to me an open and shut case.
Ed's claim that 3 or 4 editors are taking a proprietary attitude to the article strikes as something between fair comment and trivial. Nothing to get excited about. Likewise Jim's rejoinder, though I'm a little more concerned about what might be a veiled threat there.
Anyway, I have – legitimately – been handed a 24-hour block for my ignorant but innocent violation of the 3-reverts rule. When I get back (and assuming I can spare the time), I will try to revisiting the sourcing issues, hopefully stepping on fewer toes this time. However, I expect everyone else to play by the rules as well.--CJGB (Chris) 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--CJGB (Chris) 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks in advance. El_C 07:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish orphans

[edit]

Dear Chris, when you get back could you please visit the "Jewish orphans" section on Pius XII and comment on the current solution. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingua diphthongs

[edit]

I would appreciate an authoritative source stating that /oi/ is a diphthong in Interlingua. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ennoio? Appoio? Pois? Exploitar? I think it's pretty clearly in there.CJGB (Chris) 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see why the <oi> in those words cannot be pronounced separately. It's not that I necessarily believe this to be the case, but both the grammar book and the dictionary are notoriously vague about the pronunciation of vowel combinations except for explicitly mentioning the /ai/, /au/ and /eu/ diphthongs and without at least any (semi-)official source the assertion of an /oi/ diphthong is untenable in the Wikipedia article. -- Dissident (Talk) 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is, according to you at least, /ei/ also a diphthong in Interlingua? It would fit the pattern vis-à-vis the source languages. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about /ei/. What words would it be present in? The only ones I can think of are 3-vowel sequences as in ethiopeio, which I'd interpret as two simple vowels separated by the semiconsonant /j/. CJGB (Chris) 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extrapolating its presence on the basis of the fact that it and /oi/ are also present in that set of source languages that have /ai/, /au/ and /eu/, namely Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. It is interesting to note however that many words that have the sequence <ei> in Interlingua are separated by accent marks in the source languages. Since this is all original research (unless shown otherwise), I'm inclined to remove any mention of both /ei/ as well as /oi/ and just let the article state that Interlingua has at least the abovementioned three diphthongs. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case

[edit]

Hi CJGB. I'm currently mediating a case into which you're involved.

Please take a look of the case here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments, including yours, of course ;-).

So, please voice your opinion on the case's page.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

The "2" anon users are actually just one – I've got a dynamic IP adress. I would like to comment at the case, but I don't think they would take me seriously as I am an anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.92.88 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Update- Here are some sources that use the term "Bosnian Muslim"

"Bosnian Muslim", it seems, is in no way offensive, and by far the most widespread term used in English. Former Anon 06:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may want to read this. It looks to me that something fishy is going on, since out of nowhere, some guy – who hasn't made an edit for 4 months – just jumped straight in and reverted the Bosniaks article. Former Anon 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, I'm not enough of an expert to tell. (In fact, I'm not an expert at all.) Still, it looks like at least some other people are getting involved at Bosniaks. Personally, if I were you I'd hold off a bit until the mediation process goes forward. There is a general problem with ethnic articles – they sometimes (or do I mean frequently? ;-) ) get dominated by nationalist hotheads; so it's possible we may never get even such a reasonable change instated. It's part of the "sinkhole effect" that will probably bring the Wikipedia down in the end. CJGB (Chris) 14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Trees--Polly_on_the_Shore--sample.ogg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Trees--Polly on the Shore--sample.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pocket degu.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pocket degu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJGB&oldid=1140234106"