Hello, Licqua! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Code mixingEdit


I deleted the category you recently created. There's a lot of confusion as to what a mixed language is, and calling code switching "mixed" only adds to the confusion. Also, many of the articles described simple pidgins or other forms of language contact. I added the categories 'language contact' and 'code-switching'; they're still a bit of a jumble, but hopefully will help. (The category 'macaronic language' is over-used, and I haven't gone through it all.) kwami (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please see discussion of code-switching at Talk:code-switching. Cnilep (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(From User talk:Cnilep:) I see no difference in meaning between the article on Code-switching and that of Code mixing. Licqua (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that the current Code mixing page is inadequate. The couple of sentences I added on the subject at Code-switching might benefit from additional attention, too. A major problem in defining code mixing is that some linguists use the terms code-mixing and code-switching interchangeably, and those who differentiate them may do so in different ways, especially in different sub-fields.
I've just returned home from several weeks on the road. When I'm unpacked and rested I'll try to write something better for the Code mixing page. I also look forward to your changes or additions. Cnilep (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

classification of JapaneseEdit

You have been blocked for edit warring on Classification of Japanese. From your edit commments, you appear to think that a discussion does not need to involve the editor proposing the changes. On the contrary, you have the primary responsibility to present and justify the changes that you wish to make. kwami (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and for this reason I request an unblock. I simply asked you to state what your issues were with what I was putting. No-one did this, so it was impossible for me to discuss it. It's also innapropriate to block without giving a warning first. It's also even more innapropriate to block a user you, yourself are involved in the dispute with. In such cases, it is advised that you take the case to another administrator.
My edits did not even change the content of the article - they left what it was saying the same, but in a shorter and clearer form. Licqua (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a social enterprise. If you don't know how to work with people, you will find things difficult here. You may ask to be mentored if you like. You of course are also welcome to request to be unblocked: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. However, I have not seen any attempt on your part to work with others.
[edit conflict] I don't see how I'm involved--I may have edited the article, but if so, it was so long ago I have no recollection of it. As for the changes, reverted purely on the behaviour of the contestants. If there's no change in content, then there shouldn't be any problem in discussing them. kwami (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Mentored? And I did make an attempt - I asked you to clarify what you wanted me to say, but it was reverted with no comment, so I didn't know what I was supposed to be discussing about it. Also, it's difficult to "work with others" when I'm blocked. You reverted twice by the way: [1], [2]. Licqua (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring over a contested edit and then demanding that others justify their objections before they revert you, without any attempt at discussion on your part, won't fly. I'm not the only one to say this to you. Also, you're not blocked from editing Talk pages, as should be apparent. The point of the block is to get you to work through the Talk page, if you're willing. Yes, I'm aware I've reverted you twice. That's not what being "involved" in an article means—I have nothing invested in the current version of the article. Who knows? If you presented your reasoning, I might find your POV convincing. kwami (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm only allowed to edit my talkpage under a block - nothing else. Licqua (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried? You should still be able to edit Talk pages. kwami (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got to sign off soon, so I'll go ahead and unblock you. Can I trust you to take your argument to the Talk page, rather than just reverting again? kwami (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VikSolEdit

Hi. I was wondering if it was possible for you to have a look at the case, being a checkuser. Thanks in advance. Licqua (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I rarely use of the CU tool for issues outside of specific arbcom cases or to give another opinion in a really complex case, so you need to contact someone else to look at the request if you have not already done so. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)