User talk:Botterweg/Archive 1

Archive 1


Your draft article, Draft:Sobibor uprising (section for the main article)

Hello, Botterweg14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sobibor uprising".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm JellyMan9001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sonderkommando without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. JellyMan9001 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sobibor extermination camp, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German, Austrian and Bełżec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Award

 The WikiChevrons 
Thanks for your work on Sobibor extermination camp! buidhe 19:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


Source for the map

I can find some maps online that have similar content to your map (File:Sobibor extermination camp map, summer 1943.png) but they don't explicitly say that they show the camp in 1943 [1][2]. It would be great if you could edit the source parameter to include where you got the information from. Thanks! buidhe 19:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the chevron! I'll try to retrace my steps with the map, but in a nutshell it's summer 1943 because it shows Camp IV. I can't promise that all the other details match up to the camp at that time though I did my best. Honestly, though, I wish we could just find a better free map somewhere out there. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franz Stangl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kapo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Thomalla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bełżec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying requires attribution

Botterweg14, it’s fine to copy content from one article to another, but Wikipedia’s licensing requirements make it obligatory to provide attribution for the copied content in the edit summary. WP:CWW explains how to do this. When you forget to provide attribution, as you did in several edits at Sobibor extermination camp, you can fix it up after the fact; please see WP:RIA for how to do this. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for letting me know! I actually had no idea this was the policy. I think I've fixed it now via dummy edits, but please let me know if there are any lingering problems. Botterweg14 (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about image

Do you have any idea what part of the camp it shows? (I restored the image and am thinking of nominating it for featured picture, so it would be useful to have the information). Also, do you know if the Metropol Verlag book says anything about the copyright status of the album? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the yard in the foreground is Lager I. It's a little hard to recognize at first, since maps often portray it as it appeared a bit later. The area with the buildings in the background is the Vorlager-- towards the left, you can see the green house that's also still there. The SS flag on the right marks the main gate, and behind it you can see the roof of the station. I don't see anything about the photos being copyrighted, but I can't sift through the book quite as naturally as a German speaker might. Botterweg14 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I've added the information to the image description. (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Counterfactual conditional: Philosophy and linguistics

Recently, you changed the name of the Philosophy section of Counterfactual conditional to 'Philosophy and Linguistics'. To me the content in that section seems to only contain philosophy. Could you please provide a reason why you changed it? lammbdatalk 12:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the note! I changed that section heading because most of the content there is describing semantic analyses of counterfactuals, so it kind of bridges linguistics and philosophy. I'm also planning to add discussion of post-Lewis developments, where card-carrying linguists play a bigger role. I'm still not quite happy with the current section heading, since "linguistics" could call to mind grammatical description and "philosophy" could call to mind metaphysics, neither of which are really what the section is about. Maybe something like "semantic analyses" would be better?
Also, were you planning on working the article? There's a lot I think can be improved in the article and I'd be delighted to have a collaborator, or even just an editor if you're busy with other things! Botterweg14 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I agree with 'semantic analyses' being a better description. Also, I wasn't planning on doing a major re-work, but I would be glad to help out with some minor things like copyediting and so on. lammbdatalk 16:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Cool! Anything you'd wanna help with, I'd appreciate! Botterweg14 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Conditional sentence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Dutch, Danish and French
Counterfactual conditional (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Dutch and Danish
English conditional sentences (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Formal semantics
Erich Lachmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to SA
Possible world (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lewis

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English conditional sentences, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Imperative and Declarative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dynamic semantics
added links pointing to Modality and Anaphora
Modal logic
added a link pointing to David Lewis

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dynamic semantics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Assertion and Johan van Benthem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Blank and redirect of 'English modals of deduction'

Just a note to say best practice is to advertise what you have done if there is nontrivial content on the page you are blanking. See WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. I've put a comment on Talk:Epistemic modality. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I'm still learning! Botterweg14 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a vast amount of policy, and we don't expect editors to know all the rules: that's why we have WP:IAR. I've looked over your contributions and you are doing excellent content creation: that is just what we need. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Aw shucks, thanks! I hope to make many more contributions, and I would definitely appreciate more notes like this if you notice ways I can level up my wikicitizen-ship! Botterweg14 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

English subjunctives

You've done an excellent job, but ... really? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I should read with more care! Thanks :) Botterweg14 (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've done worse, much worse.... And something else about that article. You've cited CGEL a lot. Nothing wrong with that, but the result gives the impression that much of the content of the resulting article was in effect dictated by just two linguists, Huddleston and Pullum, which is unfortunate and also not quite true. CGEL of course consists of chapters by a variety of named authors (though Huddleston is a/the author of each). Would it perhaps be better if each reference instead said Authors, "Title", chapter N of Huddleston and Pullum (2002), pp. nn–nn, or similar? "Huddleston and Pullum (2002)" could be elaborated on in one place. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I like your idea about citing the chapters in CGEL. But are there additional sources you'd recommend?Botterweg14 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
For the decline and revival in British English of the subjunctive mandative, yes: Rohdenburg and Schlüter, eds, One Language, Two Grammars? ... probably more besides, but I can't think of any now. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, you're the best! I really appreciate the work you're putting in to help this little bonsai of an article. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, hahaha you weren't the one who blanked the main page were you? Botterweg14 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Which edit of mine might that have been? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I've worked on this article so long that the computer screen has fried my eyeballs. It's still a mess, but right now I can't think straight. I've undone some of your work (your "minimal pair"), so feel free to undo some of mine! -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No reverts from me! This looks amazing! Botterweg14 (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Umm, view it in the "cold light of day" and some of its problems will be very apparent. One oddity is that it talks about what is [present tense] grammatical, illustrating this with some examples that (A) seem dated, (B) verifiably are dated, or (C) seem very strange indeed. I tossed out a bunch of (C). As for (B), we have "Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us" (previously misattributed, now correctly [I hope] attributed; well over a century old, but now curiously topical); and "Whoever he be, he shall not go unpunished", which Google shows has been shamelessly copied from one dreary web page to another (many vaguely citing "New Testament") and as an illustrative example goes back at least as far as 1922. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Uses of English verb forms

Hey Botterweg, thanks for the edit summary, but I'm going to revert it again. I would agree that the entire issue is not earth-shattering either way, but I'd disagree that catena constitutes "niche grammar formalism." Indeed I think it's a pretty straightforward linguistics term - so much so that it has its own Wikipedia article. In the context of the Uses of English verb forms article, I'd say it's better to have it than not. It's helpful for users who know the term and instructive for those who don't. Right? Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the note. I'll leave it to you to make a final judgment, but I do think the link is undue weight. Catenas are really only used in Timothy Osborne's personal variant of dependency grammar–– and the "catena" article is only as good as it is because Osborne himself wrote it. That's definitely not to say it's pseudoscience or anything like that, just that it's a little niche for a link the lede. Botterweg14 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Now THIS is the kind of back-and-forth I appreciate. Your comment exposed my brain fart on the matter. By way of background, I work with three senses of catena:

  1. Timothy Osborne's dependency grammar sense of catena as given in the Wikipedia article.
  2. The general sense of catena, definition 1 as sourced from in Wiktionary.
  3. A functional linguistics sense of linguistics that I’ve coined for my own use, namely: “a collocated chain, series, or string of words within the same lexical category.” Accordingly, my lexicon includes adverb catena (e.g. “Are you still there?” or “completely, entirely, and utterly useless”) and adjective catena (e.g. “vehicles are far and few between” or “a small, intimate wedding”) as well as verb catena (e.g. “was going” and “would have gone”).

As I work with my own sense of catena on a regular basis, I interpolated it as the meaning suggested in the Uses of English verb forms article. My bad! So, in hindsight, I think you were right to delete the dependency grammar sense of catena from the article. Incidentally, my own definition for verb catena is this: a collocated chain, series, or string of two or more verb forms performing an aggregate function within a verb phrase that comprises:

  • a modal verb (E.g. "I might go;" "Who will be there?")
  • an auxiliary verb ("They haven't arrived;" "How long have you been living here?" "I am losing my mind.")
  • an inflected verb "I don't know;" "Do come in!")

So, in contrast to Osborne, my verb catena definition includes a collocation such as “Botterweg is chewing gum” (since “is” and “chewing” aggregately perform a dynamic function and are both verbs) but excludes a verb phrase such as “'Wrigley' is chewing gum” (since the “is” performs a stative function and “chewing” is an attributive gerund). Admittedly, most people couldn't care less about such distinctions from a linguistics standpoint as the meaning of a given sentence remains the same no matter how we term its lexical items and parse its syntax. Yet, my aim is to give rational explanations to ESL students who commonly can’t distinguish an active participle (Botterweg is chewing gum”) from a passive participle (“Botterweg is amazing/has tired”) from an active verb catena (“Botterweg is amazing his peers/has tired his opponents) from a gerund (“Botterwegs are bowling balls that win numerous championships).

[Note: I can't tell you how many times ESL students read a sentence like “Botterwegs are bowling balls that win numerous championships" and can't determine whether "Botterwegs" are (a) people who continually bowl balls that win championships, or (b) a brand of bowling balls. The distinction is particularly hard when unfamiliar proper nouns are entailed.]

In my view, traditional grammar terms (e.g. present participle and past participle) and niche linguistic terms (e.g. Osborne’s catena) are insufficient to describe all of the above distinctions. So, let me introduce myself as the nominal linguist (and erstwhile novelist) who’s labored the past four years to fix everything.

Long story short: I’m restoring your edit. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luca Incurvati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assertion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sobibor uprising (section for the main article)

Hello, Botterweg14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sobibor uprising".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C-command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaphora.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free choice inference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imperative.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Charles Leonard Hamblin
added a link pointing to Formal semantics
Expression
added a link pointing to Sentence
Tilde
added a link pointing to Formal semantics

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Leonard Hamblin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formal semantics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. Tag question

Your recent edit is a lot more precise. Casual users might find it a bit less accessible. (Hope they use the imbedded links as needed.) Yet, I deleted some of your explanatory stuff toward the end of your edit. See the comments in that edit for my rationale. Also, one omission is worth noting: Among Canadians and some British English speakers (esp. New Zealand), they often use interrogatives + question tags, e.g. "Is it raining, what?" or "Are you a doctor, hey?" Also, in the U.S., it's common to hear, e.g. "Are we having fun, or what?" That was missing prior to your edit and I was too daunted by Wikipedia's "original research" police lazy to put it in. I still am. If you have some relevant cites for that, please have at it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A little mischief

Please review my edit here re. "nonfinite verb" and also here. The edits are unabashedly un-cited in contrast to Wikipedia's original research policy, but the editing is so prima facie valid that it nonetheless requires inclusion in the article to remedy a glaring omission. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sobibor revolt

Information icon Hello, Botterweg14. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sobibor revolt, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Chaim Engel

Information icon Hello, Botterweg14. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Chaim Engel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Material conditional
added links pointing to Conjunction, Tautology and Frank Jackson
Paradoxes of material implication
added links pointing to Meaning and Material implication
Intuit
added a link pointing to FTC

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sobibor revolt

Hello, Botterweg14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sobibor revolt".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Chaim Engel

Hello, Botterweg14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chaim Engel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Paradoxes of material implication
added a link pointing to Material implication
Quantifier (logic)
added a link pointing to Dual

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Logical connective, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjunction.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sobibor extermination camp

Information icon Hello, Botterweg14. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sobibor extermination camp, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sobibor extermination camp

Hello, Botterweg14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sobibor extermination camp".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Eternal Shadow Talk 16:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Formal semantics (natural language), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English subjunctive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imperative.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Troy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hittite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mycenaean Greece

Thank you for your edits on Mycenaean Greece. I removed most of the links u added to see also. If the link is already in the article, usually we don't need it repeated in see also. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your article creations

You have created several articles recently that cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but include URLs that are broken. Please fix your references to include the correct URLs so I can verify the content of these articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I've fixed it now. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving pages during RM discussion

Hi, just in case you didn't see Asukite's comment at Talk:Import–export (logic), I wanted to reiterate that, for future reference, articles shouldn't be moved while there's still an ongoing Requested move discussion. I know you were just trying to help, but it does confuse things a bit when people come to the discussion and see previous comments talking about moving the article away from X, when actually it's currently situated at Y. Colin M (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi and logically speaking

Thanks for this edit and yes, that WikiProject seems comatose. Pity. Symptomatic of much of the postmodern world I am afraid. If I had forty lifetimes I might spend one of them revitalising it (the WikiProject I mean, but that might even revitalise the postmodern world per the butterfly effect). We badly miss Larry Sanger!

Hang in there. Is there any particular issue you'd like to address? Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Movement paradox: Not really a paradox

Hello, I saw your edit on the article Movement paradox with edit summary "not really a paradox."

Since you are a linguist, why didn't you change the name of the article?

PD: I'm not a linguist. --TwainNeverSaidThat 00:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to assist in question semantics article

Greetings! I've started drafting the article for question semantics. While there aren't a lot of "semantics of X" articles on here, question semantics is big and important enough to have a longer article (similar to wh-movement for syntax. Because it's such a huge and complex topic, I suspect it will take a while. Given the other articles you're active on and have written, I suspect you might be interested in taking part. It's not my direct interest area research wise, but something I've examined recently involves questions, so I'm using the writing of this as a good opportunity to review the basics. Biktor627 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for creating that draft! I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia at the moment, but I'll definitely pitch in when I can. Botterweg14 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I dispute your revert of subjunctive mood

I’m not sure why you assert that were isn’t subjunctive. Its entry in Wiktionary calls it:

“first/second/third-person singular/plural simple present/past subjunctive of be.”

Furthermore, in Wiktionary’s definition of subjunctive mood, the very first example given is:

“If John were here, he would know what to do.”

And if that’s not enough, Merriam-Webster too calls it subjunctive.

So I intend to restore my edit, but wanted to check with you in case there might be something I am missing.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Older grammars sometimes call that a "subjunctive" based on a loose analogy with Latin, so it's not totally crazy. However, for a variety of reasons, it's not really technically correct, so recent high quality sources (e.g. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) classify it as an irrealis clause instead. I'm not normally inclined to worry too much about terminology, but here I think it's important partly as a precedent for Wikipedia to use the highest quality recent sources (since there's so much garbage out there) and also because the older term is seriously misleading and comes with a lot of baggage.
If you have access to CGEL, the key section is page 87 onward. Alternately, you could have a look at this slightly polemical (but still authoritative) article by Geoff Pullum. (And if you're just curious about the subject, you might find this interesting, though it's about a slightly different issue.) Botterweg14 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amy Rose Deal has been accepted

Amy Rose Deal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— The Most Comfortable Chair 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santorini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Botterweg14. Thank you for your work on Seha River Land. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proposition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Characteristic set.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Bin Tepe is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Modal logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Causation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kommos (Crete), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agia Triada.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kommos (Crete), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Front loader.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Lustral basin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akrotiri.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)