User talk:Cal Evans

Welcome and Redirects

Welcome!

Hello, Cal Evans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! — Deon555talkdesksign here! 04:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No worries. It's already Half way through Saturday here.. but I'll be sure to enjoy Sunday :D Thanks! — Deon555talkdesksign here! 04:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha.. Na it's a beautiful place tis Melbourne. Wouldn't live anywhere else in the world — Deon555talkdesksign here! 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Folkspraak

Cal, thanks for the note. A majority of editors in the AfD supported deletion; more importantly, no one was able to establish that Folkspraak was notable--there's not enough non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. If you feel there are sources that weren't taken into consideration, I'll be happy to look at them, but based on the discussion in the AfD and the material in the article I didn't see any convincing evidence that Folkspraak was a notable encyclopedic topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reviews

I noted in your contribution to the Folkspraak deletion review that you've noticed the anti-conlang bias on here. So it isn't just I that have spotted this. I went through a major crisis a couple of years ago about a proposal to delete Ceqli, where it got deleted improperly, I managed to get it undeleted, and now it's been proposed to delete yet again! (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceqli (second nomination)) This led to such bad blood that when someone proposed me to be an admin, that fight was used as the main reason not to give me the adminship (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BRG). -- BRG 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your thought that the article would stay wasn't borne out. I think that the whole question of notability is one that leads to a can of worms, and whoever decided that notability was a valid criterion doesn't understand that when you have over 1.8 million articles, notability should be presumed -- but I don't own Wikipedia and I'm too tired of the thing to wage another undeletion fight. -- BRG 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority language

I've just read your reply on the discussion page of the article Minority language. Thanks for clearing up my doubt. --Antonielly (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This copy of the Interlingua external link section is current as of 29 August 2007 (UTC). Cal (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingua organizations

Dictionaries, grammars, and language study

Interlingua news and information

Computer and Internet resources

Entertainment in Interlingua

Government and public service sites

Religion and philosophy in Interlingua

Documents and literature

References

Hi! I've been cleaning up the references in the Interlingua article. It appears that you added a bunch of the references to the article (good work) and judging by one of your edit summaries you know you can name references as well, but you might also find it useful to know that you can use "empty" references when you've named one already. To do this, first name a reference: <ref name="gospill1990">...</ref>, then later you can use an "empty" reference tag (note the slash before the ">"): <ref name="gospill1990"/> Voila, less typing and copy/pasting! KellenT 13:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it used to be the case that the reference with the full text had to go first, but now this is not the case according to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming_a_ref_tag_so_it_can_be_used_more_than_once. Instead, the first <ref> with text is the one that shows up, but before that you can use empty tags as much as you want. KellenT 08:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revising Interlingua article

On re-reading, I think my rollback comment was a bit harsh - but, really, the edits you deleted were very far from being either unverifiable or original research. Admittedly, someone should eventually provide references, but both assertions (IA in 2nd or 3rd place; development started in 1938) are pretty obviously true, and can be backed up with high-quality references (Detlef has something on the first one; the 1945 General Report should support the second).

Let me compliment you on the excellent you've done on the article, especially in firming up citations. However, I think that the criticisms about article bias are reasonable - parts of it read like a press release from U.M.I. I am myself an partisan of Interlingua, and sit on the board of a national IA organization. So, I'm all for this article giving a positive view of Interlingua. (Of course, it has to respect all the Wikipedia values around neutrality, quality of research and so on. But that's what we have Esperantists for! :-) ). But I think the current article, paradoxically, creates a negative impression by reading like too much of a puff piece. It undermines its own credibility. This is something we should work on changing over the next few months. Cheers, 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (film)

Hi - I'm a big fan of artificial languages too. On a different note, I would like you to read the article Holy Hell (film) and then put your opinion on the absurd page proposing its deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (film), if you would. Thank you... Geĸrίtzl (talk)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]