Ling.Nut2

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

"It doesn't meet 1(c) if it doesn't discuss Aristotlean perspectives on the plot and include an explanation of the predator–prey relationship between cats and mice!" says the Fierce Bad Rabbit

Welcome

Hello, Ling.Nut2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarity in username to User:Ling.Nut

Hello. Are you User:Ling.Nut? Your usernames are awfully similar and your userpage is a copy of his/hers. If not, then your account could be considered an impersonation account. If you are Ling.Nut, would you put a notice to that effect on User:Ling.Nut2 using the Ling.Nut account to confirm? Thanks, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Ling.Nut account is scrambled. However, I think you can still send me email from that account. I will reply and verify that I'm me.... I have been unable to use the original ling.nut email acct for this wikipedia acct. Not sure why.  – Ling.Nut 06:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ling.Nut2. You have new messages at Cymru.lass's talk page.
Message added 02:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2nd — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

3rd, which I think has found an easier solution — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

4 — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

cinco... but not de mayo — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey !

Just saw you at FAC-- always happy to see you. I hope all is well-- on my end, all is settled, at last! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words! My time is always gonna be spotty, at least for the next year or so. I may work hard for one week, then almost disappear for the next... and so on. I'm trying to recover the original Ling.Nut account, but am running into some glitches. I hope things will be straightened out & I can use it again soon... thanks again!  – Ling.Nut 04:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I sent a password reset email for the Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) account. If you can still log in to that email account you registered for Ling.Nut, then you should be able to log in. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey2 !

Ling.Nut, glad to see you back, in whatever capacity you have time for! You know how unhappy I was to see you go last year, so I need say no more at this time. Hope to see you around. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words! See the reply to Sandy above... thanks!  – Ling.Nut 04:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello little wing nut!

Remember not date T-rex, tee hee! bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

• I have "Kiss a T. rex" written down on my "10 Dangerous Things to Avoid Doing This Weekend" list, since I have no desire to be an hors d'œuvre. Thanks for the kind words, though!  – Ling.Nut 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Marshalling evidence

Alfred Marshall was a partial equilibrium theorist who didn't like mathematics, who was the leading pre-Keynesian economist. I have no idea why he was listed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I had vague (and possibly misconstructed) memories of the idea that Marshall laid the groundwork for Keynes. It has been two decades. I could easily be wildly wrong.  – Ling.Nut 09:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

re: ..

.. this post. Referring to your fellow editors as "yammerheads" (which equates to: idiot, obnoxious, and douchebag according to this) really isn't the direction our project is looking for. Please exercise a bit more discretion in your efforts. Note that I've removed the post per: WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  03:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• PS ... and you can go ahead and delete this once you've seen it. I just don't want to see you get in any trouble at such a high profile page. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  03:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The project? You're the voice of the project? And my post wasn't soapbox; it is very useful to the Project to chide editors for wasting their time on pointless blowhard !@#$%^&* like that page... BTW, feel free to reduce your opinion of yourself a couple notches. You are very far from being the voice of the project. Cheers. 04:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. Not at all the way I'd hoped you would see things, but you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I was in no way intending to imply I was the voice of anything. I assume you are capable of reverting my removal. With that, I'll leave you to your efforts. Later, — Ched :  ?  06:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've restored your post. — Ched :  ?  06:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for restoring my post. I am of the firm opinion that if you tell ten yammerheads that they are all yammerheads, then seven will ignore you, two will revile you, but one may feel ashamed and come correct. The result is a net gain for the Project (and its voice, whoever that is... Giano, I assume).
• Sorry if I was too harsh on you.
• If any non-admin comes to my talk page yammering, I will ignore them completely, as they indeed deserve. If another admin comes, well, we'll see. – Ling.Nut 08:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

All good. TBH, I've argued that the page should not even exist, but I've all but given up arguing the point. It's just that I've seen some folks with itchy trigger fingers when it comes to the block button, and I didn't want to see that happen. All the best to you. — Ched :  ?  08:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we had a desysop button, folks wouldn't have an itchy trigger finger resting on the block button... just sayin'...  – Ling.Nut 09:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

List of American Civil War battles

Hello Ling, I hope everything is going well with you. I thought I'd run a change by you before I get too far with it. I've been somewhat concerned that other editors may have difficulty with the sorting logic—not that there should be many changes to the tables once they are complete, but the point remains. In order to simplify the sorting logic I changed three of the four tables and replaced the sorting logic using the dts and dtsh (for date ranges) templates. I'm holding off on the "Battles rated by CWSAC" table, since that would be more difficult to undo. What do you think? Mojoworker (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good! I didn't know those templates existed. Well done. Carry on with your changes; it's a good thing. Later!  – Ling.Nut 03:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2011-06-28 165756.png

Thanks for uploading File:2011-06-28 165756.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Clariifcation

Looks like I may be the one who over-reacted. you may be aware that there are some who feel very strongly about WR,(which is quite understandable), but some have taken it to the point that they have suggested that anyone who even reads, much less posts at WR should be banned from Wikipedia. When I saw you say " Ban user who posts", I thought you were echoing that sentiment, and calling for a ban (from Wikipedia) of anyone who posts (at WR). I now see you were talking more narrowly about the single person who was posting the ArbCom communications. Sorry, my intention was to avoid an over-reaction, and I may have inadvertently contributed to one.--SPhilbrickT 11:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: West Virginia

Hello, Ling.Nut2. You have new messages at Mojoworker's talk page.
Message added 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indeed.

Can I have a large container of coffee? Thank you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh

Saw yer post on Julian & Hink's talk pages (I think they are called that, anyway :S) Hurricanefan25 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Widdle Wiki-kitty sez...

thank you for my original barnstar! I be treasuring the kind gift from an ubervet to a newbie ex-permabannee.

Keep up the good mood and have fun!!

TCO (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You could use one SPhilbrickT 21:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks very much for your help at User talk:Dominic. (also, sorry for Wikiloving you -- I've seen your opinion on the tool -- but I was too lazy to copy/paste a barnstar) :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We'd love to have you! We're a pretty collegial bunch, so you'd fit in perfectly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've seen you at FAC, so I know you're a good chap to have around. Leave me a message if I can help with anything. If you do start on Civil War battles but get bored, there's always the project linked in my signature... ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting

By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic·t 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Toad leggs or whatever

Have you not learnt from this diff [1]. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, drooling, all agog and breathlessly waiting for you to explain what the heck this message means. ;-)  – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Something went wrong with the diff; I'll add the diff as text (the formating may not be exactly as you wrote it):

Several people, largely comprised of FAC reviewers and perhaps with Malleus as their most vocal member, jumped on DYK for consistently low-quality production. [Mind you, this has been brewing for a very, very long time. I personally lost at least one or two !votes on my RfA for complaining about it, and that was a fairly long time ago.. and that was also far from the beginning of this saga.] The focus of the complaints seems to have narrowed at some point to copyvio, although I am aware that the complaints have been far broader than that over the history of this issue.

DYK people, feelings hurt by the sharpness of the thrust of the negative comments, say "I know we have problems, but we are not alone!!" They then begin producing examples of other Wikipedia processes that have shoddy output.

Once this flushing of skeletons out of the closet commenced, people began looking for problems that the group of complainers overlooked, with special emphasis on Malleus.

!@#$%^&* for tat ensues; individuals from both "sides" guilty of it (but not everyone from either side, of course). More feelings hurt. More !@#$%^&* for tat. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Is that a fair summary? ...Now, we've all been around Wikipedia long enough to know that mutual apologies are completely out of the question, and the very idea would provoke indignant noises from both sides of the !@#$%^&* for tat. So let's brush that option aside and think about other ways to be productive. Hmmmm. How about this:

Every single process on Wikipedia sucks to one degree or another. Every... single... one.

Wikipedia is a unified construct with individual components that seem vastly different, but really aren't.

No one is paid to do this; we do it in our free time.

There are no (well, few) bureaucratic processes that create the kind of redundancies that we love to hate (by and large, for good reason), but that do in fact shore up the labors of the group.

FAC perhaps sucks noticeably less because it is a very prolonged process involving a team effort, often employing a fruitful division of labor... It also attracts the most experienced content reviewers (some of whom have published academic articles). But even FAC can slip up.

All processes – even FAC – suffer from an inadequate supply of experienced reviewers and editors. that's one more reason why all processes suck to one degree or another.

Copyvio/plagiarism is occasionally easy to spot (e.g., a sudden gem of brilliant prose parachuted into general mass of crap). However, more often than not, copyvio is quite difficult to catch. As we have discussed ad nauseum, downstream Wikifluvia makes determining "who said what, when" a very, very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Given that, missing instances of copyvio is simply to be expected from any one reviewer, and even (to a lesser degree) from a group of reviewers. Simply put, it is a cost of doing information business on the Internet.

Given all of the above, can we now deal with the situation realistically, as a nearly unavoidable feature of the Wikipedia construct, rather than as a forum for airing interpersonal griefs? – Ling.Nut (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

* I think that you are mispresenting my SandyGeorge talkpage statement(s). In your own words you state; " Copyvio/plagiarism is occasionally easy to spot (e.g., a sudden gem of brilliant prose parachuted into general mass of crap). However, more often than not, copyvio is quite difficult to catch." That is really what I am stating in more detail: copyvios is easy to spot when the only citations are web-based; and as you undoubted already know I failed to find it on two GAs (one of which already had them at DTK) but I did find them in some educational assignements (well I've done 401 GAreviews, as a percentage it's not bad: that is not complancy on my part, in case you have the urge to "miss"-quote me). I'm really objecting to your "I guarantee no copyvios tick box", poor reviewers will either tick the box regardless or fail to review in acordance with WP:WIAGA, I also dislike being named as poor reviewer on User talk:SilkTork, so I've responded there as well. Your idea is good, it is the implementation that I don't like. I'm willing to go along with this: "Suggest amending criteria 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;". SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:58, 30 July 2011"

• I would also draw your attention to this (also from SandyGeorge's talkpage): No you are not being very realistic: This one took me half an hour Pulvermacher's chain. Some reviews have taken me two or three weeks (evenings only) of my time - for example this in its original form Ethanol fuel in Brazil; and this one Brassiere took one month to complete. I did 58 GAN reviews once in one month (mostly full time), but I burnt out for several months afterwards. I can find a 10-review (not mine) if you want. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Pulvermacher's chain would be an example of an article that would be quite difficult and time consuming to check for copyvios, particularly because the sources are more or less offline (Here, however, the fact that a particular fact is cited to multiple sources suggests that this was done legit (though of course one can't be 100% sure without actually checking the sources)). So yes, doing a spot-check is not going to help much. But there are a lot of cases where a spot-check can be done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk)

• I'm sorry for the delay in replying to your message on my talkpage. Some tasks can be done on a laptop whilst the adverts are the TV. Others, such as reviewing and responding here, I only do on my main computer, when I have no distractions. Thus I have done some editing, but that was not intentionally ignoring your question.

Much "water has gone under the bridge" since then. You produced a very qood summary on DYK/SandyGeorge's talkpage of the effects that occur when conflict arise: hurt fealings, !@#$%^&* for tat, etc. It seem to me that you were playing that very game across from DYK/SandyGeorge's talkpage to GA talkpage, so I responded accordingly.

I hope we are all back in the progress making mode. To be clear my interest is in GA, not DYK I ended up there as a result of copyvios. It is also in improving articles, not in finding reasons for doing little or nothing. Pyrotec (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think everyone is exploring ways to improve GA. I don't think anyone is intentionally playing games, but if anyone is, just ignore him or her. I can't participate much now but may have more free time later. Thanks for the message!  – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Funerary art

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Funerary art. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)