User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi. And sometimes the Romance languages simply inherited words that existed in classical Latin without much change. It's not as if classical Latin and Vulgar Latin had 100% completely different vocabularies. FilipeS (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion move

Thanks for the move! I'd absentmindedly read "at the bottom of this list" as "directly below this text" like an AfD list. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a problem: why is the order of these things inconsistent from one issue board to another? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Upload

I noticed on its talk page that you had issues with the page. It's unprotected now.

Editors are needed to watchlist the page now that it is unprotected.

I've cleaned up the page the best I could (grammar and wikification). I hope it's easier to understand now.

Overhauls or major changes should be discussed on the talk page. What constitutes a major page is left to editors' judgement. If it's too drastic a change, I suppose someone will revert it. If in doubt, you could propose it first on the talk page.

Just a heads up.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist    18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stale report

They haven't edited since 19:41:53 (UTC). Re-report if they start vandalising again. xenocidic (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See the blocking policy. While I may be erring on the side of conservatism, since there is no immediate danger to the encyclopedia, I didn't block the user. (Most likely the person's computer class has let out and they're back in English class, or something). xenocidic (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work though. Had they been still active when I came to the report, I would've blocked. xenocidic (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin

I noticed you deleted my Hypothetical Vulgar Latin Grammar and Verb discussion. Is there a place in which I may add it? I do consider it a relevant topic for the Vulgar Latin discussion as it pertains to the topic at hand and gives a great wealth of detail for those who may wish to alter the actual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finitoultero (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted it; per WP:FORUM, it doesn't belong on article talk pages. In addition, we unfortunately cannot use your blog as a source because blogs are considered unreliable sources per WP:RS. If you want people to discuss or proof-read it, I'd suggest you continue posting on users' talk pages.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was the one who added the comment (because I hadn't gotten around to looking up the policy on removing inappropriate material from talk pages), Correct, this isn't an appropriate place for this, sorry! From WP:FORUM, "Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, ...." —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deus

It is indeed weird, but the Romans never adressed deus. If they wanted to address God, they always said "o Iuppiter" (Iuppiter, like the Greek Zeus, can also mean "God" as well as the particular deity). "o Deus" (but "o Dee" is as frequent) and "o Domine" (in Classical Latin, "master", never "God") first appear in Medieval Christian exegeses.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Provençal

Provençal is indeed significant and important; all languages are significant and important. But since we can't possibly name the more than fifty Romance languages, I think that being the main language of a country is a reasonable criterion.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WOSM-European Region

Please stop trying to make a point in this article. The references to Antarctica are just silly and making a point. The discussion User:Kintetsubuffalo refers to were to discussion about deleting separate articles. That is why there are some redirects here. It is appropriate to say which countries do not have Scouting. I will however remove one piece of speculation he has added. --Bduke (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's appropriate to say, "Here is a list of countries that don't have Scouting" and list them. It's absurd to set up an entire section for each of two countries involved just to (a) belabor the point that they don't have scouting and (b) mention a couple of odd facts each that have nothing to do with whether or not they have scouting. Why does it make more sense to have these sections than one about Antarctica or, as I asked earlier, a section in the Moon article titled "Lack of wombats on the moon"? People remove such foolishness from Wikipedia articles all the time, and rightly so.

By the way, there were two pieces of speculation that I deleted: the purely speculative and pointless note about where command of Scouting in the Vatican might come from if there were Scouting in the Vatican; and then something that was openly speculative about the reason behind the situation in Andorra. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not convince me. First, these two are not arbitrarily selected from a list of countries that do not have Scouting. They are the only two in Europe and that is what this article is about. Antarctica is not in Europe. Second, the point about where young people might obtain Scouting (nearby in Rome) is sourced. I have removed the speculation about Andorra. Scouting exists in almost every country on earth. The fact that it does not exist in a few countries is notable and should be mentioned. Further it should be explained if an explanation can be sourced. The WOSM Asia article lists countries that do not have scouting and more information about why not would be welcome there. I note that you earlier tried to prod tag a redirect article, Scouting in Vatican City. This is disruptive to wikipedia. Please leave this article alone for now. --Bduke (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record: (a) I retracted my mention of arbitrariness before you submitted your response, above. (b) You evidently agree with my edit on Andorra, and the text replacing what I'd deleted in the Vatican section is worded more clearly and in fact says something different from what I'd understood the original text to mean. So both those edits were legit. As for the rest: my earlier. larger deletions were in good faith (and I admit that I had originally overlooked the larger context), and the hysterical demonization and protectionist zeal that it inspired on Kintetsubuffalo's part, to the extent that he reverted even my legitimate edits and came at me with bared teeth and dire threats, was uncalled for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Article comments

thanks for all your helpful efforts. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)