Ling.Nut3

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited List of American Civil War battles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Bull Run (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hey. For some time I have been wanting to bring some mine articles to FA but I am not sure of one thing. Would the owner need to be included in the article? It is hard to find out who the owners are for some mines, especially the mines that I have been writing about so it would be nice if the mine owners are necessary. Volcanoguy 20:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Two answers: First, just try your best to find the info. If you find it, it's probably best to put it in. If you don't find it, then it is unlikely that anyone will call your hand on that (it isn't crucial, and it's easy to overlook), but if they do, then just politely say that you looked in many sources, but were unable to find the info. Second, I'd bet a Canadian dollar that that kind of info is publicly available upon email request to some government office somewhere or other. Just a guess, but I believe that's probably true. There's probably even a humongous tome somewhere that lists every mine... but that if you can get it via email, of course that would be much easier. Gov't workers are often friendly. I've gotten some surprising stuff in the past, on various topics. [But be warm and polite... and be careful not too pester them too much, unless they turn out to be extremely chatty. Respect their personal space, and you will be rewarded...] Good luck! Ling.Nut3 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the mine article I was referring to. I tried to get some attention at WikiProject Mining for the peer review but there dosen't seem to be any interest. Volcanoguy 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Some Wikiprojects are more helpful than others... have you tried WP:PR? I might be able to look at it, but I might not. I am kind of hanging on the edge with my fingertips here, in truth. Generally speaking, I barely have time to kind of pretend to participate Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, User:Kelapstick (a member of WP Mining) did a review in February and posted comments on the article's talk page, but I have since revised those and did some expanding after the review was made. This is the first article I have posted at WP:PR so I am new to it. I will try to get some attention at other WikiProjects. Volcanoguy 22:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

List of endangered languages of the Pacific

hi Ling.Nut3, congratulations on your tremendous work on the ELP page! I'm impressed. Unfortunately I can't help you much these days — besides my usual workload, I have the extra problem that my internet has stopped working at home, and I can only access it from my office. I hope I can get back to editing the page when my internet problems are fixed. In the meantime, good luck with your edits. — Womtelo (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your work on list of endangered article series Solomon7968 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Now I'll have to ask someone to undelete my barnstar page... :-) Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wanted to say hi

Hey, hey, Ling.Nut. Different name, but the same scholarly gent, I'm sure ;). Probably don't remember me, but you, myself and DK started the 3K project a while back. Wanted to just drop in and say cheers. Good to see you're still doing good by the Wiki. Anyways, have a good one and maybe I'll drop in a bit more now. Had bone graft surgery recently and need to kill some time while I'm off work. Cheers, mate. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 05:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bone graft! Eek! That sounds terrible! I hope it isn't as terrible as it sounds! Yes, I'm me, but just don't have any time to commit to doing anything. Maybe next year I will... DK is also kinda time-challenged, I believe. If you want a project to work on, though, I bet he could give you some suggestions. Some day in the future I would like to work on a US Civil war battle or two, and perhaps (in stark contrast!) a couple poets or something else kinda literary. But none of that is for now... Anyhow, nice hearing from you! Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha! It's more terrible than it sounds, actually. The fracture was several years old and had always healed just enough for me to not pay it too much mind, then I did it in entirely at work and ended up dragging myself out to the car looking like an extra from a George Romero flick thinking it was a sprain. :D Been off it for over four months and I have another two to go before the surgical rod and the grafts are stable enough to carry weight. Gotta say, watching Dr. Oz and Days of Our Lives gets boring real quick, know what I mean? So I'll see if I can't find anything to do around here when I'm done reading every book in the house. Later, mate. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 16:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Likewise!

Also god to see you around. I had noticed you doing some minor work on the list there, it will be good eventually. I'm doing great thaks - lots of work and therefore lots of procrastination and therefore lots of wikipedia. You know how it is. ;) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the source help! Veganchic (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No problemo. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Glover Park Group

As the editor who moved in the new draft, I've responded to your concerns there. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ling

Sorry to ask you to carry on the conversation at Talk:Timeline of world history but I'm afraid I don't know enough about Wiki regulations to answer this guy's barrage of rejoinders. Do you think you could finally settle him down? Thanks. Serendi^podous 05:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Very well said too :) Serendi^podous 12:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Some day we'll work on a star article. But if i ever do have time to commit, I have to do at least one civil war battle first, and have been glancing longingly at a particular poet as well. Cheers. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

baby otters

That made me laugh. Out loud. Really. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad we shared a moment :-) Thanks. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And me. SmartSE (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like your advice

Hello Ling, it's good to hear from you. I wonder if you could take a look at something and give me your advice on how to proceed. You may remember my interest in West Virginia in the ACW from our collaboration on the ACW battles list. Sorry if this is confusing—the Operations in Western Virginia article has been moved and replaced with a disambiguation page, which is the crux of the issue. I'm sorry if this gets long winded...

First some background: the campaignbox Template:Campaignbox Operations in Western Virginia has been in place since 2004, and the name comes from the campaign list done by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm. In 2010, an editor created "Operations in Western Virginia" as a redirect to West Virginia in the American Civil War which had some information covering that campaign. Last year, an editor created Western Virginia Campaign (which was probably misnamed) which describes the same campaign.

A few days ago, I noticed a new editor, User:30 SW had added unrelated battles to the campaignbox (which is where I entered into the fray) and I reverted the change and left a note on the editor's talk page. In examining some of the editor's other changes, I resolved some ambox templates the user had placed and one of them was on the "Western Virginia Campaign" article which I saw was about the same "Operations in Western Virginia" campaign, so I wikilinked the campaignbox to that article.

I then noticed that the IP 168.244.11.2 (which has been editing for about a month) had changed "Operations in Western Virginia" from a redirect to a "dumping ground" article unrelated to the "Operations in Western Virginia" campaign, so I reverted to the redirect. I didn't realize it at the time, but there's a related discussion on categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 5#Category:Battles of the Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War which was changed from a Speedy rename where an admin notes "the nominator changed Operations in Western Virginia from a redirect to a short article." and "I'm pretty sure C2D doesn't apply when you invent the article in the middle of the nomination, but maybe I don't understand the nominator's intent." The IP later reverted my revert.

I weighed in at the category rename discussion (and in fact supported the IPs rename proposal) and was considering looking in to how to move "Western Virginia Campaign" to "Operations in Western Virginia" when User:30 SW moved the "Operations in Western Virginia" page to Western Virginia military operations of the American Civil War and created a disambiguation page at "Operations in Western Virginia". User:30 SW has now also created Operations in Northern Virginia which is just as dubious.

So, in conclusion, my thoughts are that the "Western Virginia Campaign" article should be renamed to "Operations in Western Virginia" to match the campaignbox and the official CWSAC/ABPP/NPS name. I wish I had done it earlier, but now, how would I best go about unraveling all this? I assume the disambiguation page needs to be deleted first...

Perhaps the "Western Virginia military operations of the American Civil War" and "Operations in Northern Virginia" articles should also be listed for deletion, since the basis for such an article seems to have been made up out of thin air and there is no significance to grouping battles from totally unrelated campaigns together geographically in that manner. Thanks for any insight you may have. Mojoworker (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about these campaigns... It's best for the encyclopedia if the people forming "consensus" know what the heck they are talking about. The key here is making an informed decision. If I were you, I'd notify the talk pages of knowledgeable Wikipedians (like Hlj) and also relevant notice boards, Wikiproject talk pages, etc.
• having said that, upon further reflection:

1. "Operations in Western Virginia" as a redirect to West Virginia in the American Civil War sounds fine, esp. since the text appears in a campaignbox
2. yes this is a real mess.
3. User 30 SW has moved beyond the spirit of WP:BOLD in my opinion, and needs to stop all unilateral editing on this topic, and focus on finding WP:CONSENSUS.
4. having said that, i think WP:BOLD warrants undoing some of this mess. Forex, what kind of title is "Western Virginia military operations of the American Civil War"? Sounds like the state of WV directed its army (!) to engage in battles or campaigns – obviously incorrect on several levels... I need to read these things more...
5. What is this Battle of Laurel Hill, and why does it seem to be in the wrong date.. or other sources are wrong, perhaps...?
6. Ambrose Bierce was in the battle of laurel Hill, 11 July 1861. OK. is that part of the campaign, or not?
7. hey Mojo, I know I'm supposed to say nice things and all, but who the heck is watching all these articles? They are... all... pretty unsightly. I mean, even the ones that have existed for a relatively long time. And the new one... is even worse... I suppose it's a new editor and all.. but.. this whole cluster of articles is in bad shape...
8. OK. I think I'm seeing the light a bit. OK, I agree with you. WP:AFD for Western Virginia military operations of the American Civil War and Operations in Northern Virginia. if i were you, I'd copy/paste the entire text of both articles off to a text file on my computer, go through their text line by line some day or other, and see if anything is salvageable for entry into a better-quality and more valid article. But both articles seem like a hodgepodge of shtuff thrown together by someone who has been reading the online encyclopedia of West Virginia, and is probably somehow related to Loring. Those articles are just chock full of easter egg wikilinks. I wouldn't be surprised if nothing at all is salvageable, but you never know...
9. As for "Western Virginia Campaign" versus "Operations in Western Virginia", if i were you I'd go digging in hardback sources (via Amazon, of course) and probably also google scholar to see what the consensus among historians is. It probably matches CWSAC/ABPP/NPS, but I tend to triple-check (when I actually have time). Then i would find some nice, sane place to start a discussion with knowledgeable editors.
10. I pinged Hlj. Hope that helps... – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ling. My thoughts:

1. "Operations in Western Virginia" as a redirect to "West Virginia in the American Civil War" was fine for many years, but now there is a more specific article, Western Virginia Campaign, about that campaign. But it should likely be named "Operations in Western Virginia" to match the campaignbox, but see #9.
2. It certainly is.
3. Agreed, AGF for now.
4. Looks like it's supposed to be "Operations west of the Appalachians", but why is that significant enough for its own article?
5. Laurel Hill was an opening diversionary attack as part of McClellan's main attack at the Battle of Rich Mountain. It's usually covered as part of that battle, so the dates should be similar. One source I have handy says July 10, 1861. Where are you seeing the wrong date?
6. Yes, but the Laurel Hill battle is usually covered as part of the Battle of Rich Mountain.
7. Good question. I was watching the campaignbox or I would've missed this entirely.
8. Yeah.
9. Looks like it's known under both names, so your suggestion is likely prudent.
10. OK, Thanks. Let's see what he thinks.

Mojoworker (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that all (most? Siege of Petersburg comes to mind as an exception) of the articles that are summary compilations of related battle descriptions are called the Something Campaign, so the average Wikipedia reader might find some benefit if we called this West Virginia Campaign rather than Operations in West Virginia, but that alternative name can certainly be mentioned in the article and be an extra link to it. I have no strong opinion because I had nothing to do with any of the articles in this area. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy 6th

Thanks for the reminder. I was on a break at the time. Must update my userpage! Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ling.Nut3. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive2.
Message added 08:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GoP_T^C_N 08:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Endangered language definitions

To make these changes you allude to, I suggest two possible approaches: either (1) use a template, say {{UNESCO Languages in Danger definitions}}, so that the wording (and formatting, and citing) of the definitions can be kept consistent across all the articles they appear on (one disadvantage of this approach is that other editors might not like using a template for regular article text like this, so you might get some pushback on it) or (2) just link to one copy of the definitions, say in the article Endangered language, from all the other articles/lists (might want to warn in an <!-- HTML comment --> in the target article that other articles link to it, to discourage other editors from changing the section heading thereby breaking all the incoming links). - dcljr (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hugh de Neville

I've replied at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh de Neville/archive1 - I'd appreciate if you could revisit? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology FAC

Thanks for your comments! I have fixed all the issues you brought up at the DNA nanotechnology FAC page and I'd appreciate it if you would revisit your assessment of the article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ling.Nut3. You have new messages at Antony-22's talk page.
Message added 04:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are you serious?

How do I know you're the real Ling.Nut3? Languagehat (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you trying to do? What's wrong with you? Stop playing games and go edit an article or something. Languagehat (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You had no "duty to do"; you caused my upset for no reason at all. If you were a mature adult, you'd apologize, but I'll take your going away and leaving me alone as an acceptable substitute. Languagehat (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC

The article is much improved since your last comment, and your input would be appreciated at the Paul McCartney FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, who is a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking another look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Back (Again!)

Well, I see you've been quietly working here under a third incarnation for some time, Ling.Nut[1|2|3]. You know I honestly believe that this crazy place is a lot better with you here rather than otherwise. It's still crazy, just crazy in a good way. All the best, Alan W (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words! Honestly, things have been better at times in the past than now. But I suppose... well... I dunno. But thanks for your kind words, anyhow! – Ling.Nut (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Patience for God's sake

Please give me two goddamn seconds before you flip eight shits about one broken link.

You seriously responded to my edits less than a minute after they were made. Less than one minute. Have you nothing better to do? It's fixed now, within policy, and clearer. I don't edit much. I don't have a mind-link to the Admin discussions whereupon you behead a chicken to determine what totally useless new rules to shove into your Biblically-proportioned list of policies, which, for the record, merely represent suggestions. And I follow them anyway.

98.251.50.153 (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. Do you run a bot? 98.251.50.153 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Investiture controversy edit

It was added by an anonymous user without citation. (23:27, February 10, 2012‎ 174.34.21.165)

It was also contradicted by the facts presented in the article. It seemed to me much more like an expression of a personal opinion rather than an attempt at improving the factual accuracy of the article. Otherwise, I would have tagged it instead of deleting it. TaintedMustard (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

template:HighBeam

You might be interesting in the dispute on my talk at User talk:Br'er Rabbit#The Coral Island and the recent article history. I saw your comment about [not] "adding shout-outs to the refs section". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I replied with a compromise (?) suggestion, and gave you a barnstar. Cheers! – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Avery Brundage FA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Avery Brundage become a WP:FA.

This user helped promote Avery Brundage to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Indigenous languages of California

Hello! I've seen you around on Indigenous languages of California articles ... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Indigenous languages of California, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Indigenous languages of California on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. --Djembayz (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

LanguageHat

Just a heads up that I've closed your report from earlier this summer to allow the name. Consensus seemed to be to allow it, and the discussion had gone stale. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. StarM 01:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Thai people

please perform opnion in my section about (compare the term between of siamese and thais) --โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Long-tailed Ground Roller FAC

Hello. I’d like to thank you for commenting on the Long-tailed Ground Roller’s FAC nearly a year ago, and apologize for having to step away from Wikipedia prior to the FAC’s completion to deal with my studies. I've gone through all of the old commentary and believe that I have resolved it. I’m confident I have the time to finish the FAC, and I have re-nominated the article here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could give the article another look. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for you when you return ...

	The Endangered Language Immersion School Bus Pass
	You've earned a free pass on the Endangered Language Immersion Schoolbus of your choice-- this one is Montana Salish-- for all your work on the List of endangered languages in the United States! Djembayz (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mount Meager

Hi Ling.Nut3, I might get back to this article sometime soon. I have been largely inactive editing volcanology articles for quite some time. Volcanoguy 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)