Eldin raigmore

Administrators: I would like my user page semi-protected, preferably permanently. All the vandalism has come from one anonymous user. Here is information about that vandalism: Revision as of 16:48, 10 May 2009 200.61.163.235

 + Pseudonym for a pseudointellectual. How apt! 

If somebody updates my own self-identification with an uncivil personal attack I want them to sign it. Eldin raigmore (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Eldin raigmore (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally pages are only semi-protected if they receive a lot of vandalism over a short period of time. One bad edit probably won't get an admin to protect your page. In the future, use the {{editsemiprotected}} template when you have a request to edit a semiprotected page. To request for something to be protected you'd post on WP:RFPP. See WP:SEMI concerning policy for semi-protection. Killiondude (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't know about the tlx, nor about the WP:RFPP.
I think all User pages should be automatically semi-protected as a matter of course, though.
Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Should also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?

Shouldn't Hydrogen also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Eldin: be WP:BOLD and add these category tags to elements found in biology yourself! It's not a controverial edit. SBHarris 02:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User FYI

FYI, Whimemsz account was deleted when becoming BentRedNewt, which now have also been deleted, but the User Talk pages ended up with new material even after those accounts were deleted. That user now have opened a new account as and you may communicate to that user directly via the new account. However, I believe is taking an extended wikibreak to concentrate on academics. CJLippert (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

no, I don't know. -- m:drini 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whimemsz asked me not to publish any connection between him and that other username CJLippert mentioned. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

perfect

Hi,

Do you have any refs for "retrospective" aspect/tense? I've only ever seen perfect and anterior, which is definitely used as a synonym for perfect in much of the lit. I don't care for either "anterior" or "perfect", so this would be nice to have. Also, any refs for anterior being used for past tense in a relative-tense system? It would be nice to have dab'ing terms for rel. tense. kwami (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have plenty of refs for retrospective aspect ([1], for example) and retrospective tense ([2], for example, although it also includes some "spurious hits"); and also plenty of refs for "anterior" as meaning "relative past" in a relative-tense system ([3], and [4], for instance, show several).

[5] shows several books that use "anterior" as a near-synonym for "perfect". [6] and [7] have several books by Bybee et al in which they decide "to use anterior in place of perfect"; but they don't say they're exact synonyms.

I believe that if we use anterior to mean relative past, then it makes sense to say perfect (or, as I prefer, retrospective) encodes "the effects of a state/situation/process/event/action, which took place anterior to some more-topical time, whose effects are relevant at that more-topical time". That would mean that everything "perfect" or "retrospective" was also necessarily "anterior", but not necessarily vice-versa. So I concede that they are closely-related ideas. But I think it's a shame to screw up the definition of "anterior". "Retrospective" is a better term for "perfect" than either "perfect" or "anterior"; Comrie uses it that way.

Thanks for asking! Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfect is not a tense, so if anterior is defined as a tense, they can't be synonyms. I am familiar with ANT through Bybee & some other work, but am certainly prepared to take Comrie's prefs into account. (I don't have his tense volume, only Aspect.) Especially since I feel ANT is a counter-intuitive word for PERF, while it's an intuitive term for REL.PST. I haven't had a chance to look through the refs yet, but we'd have ANT/POST for REL.PST/REL.FUT, vs. RETRO/PROSP for NPRS-affecting-PRS perfect/"gonna", right? That seems a very reasonable setup. kwami (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. If Wikipedia editors were allowed to use "this is what makes sense to me" as a valid reference, that's what it would be. Just as "retrospective" is "an ANT event whose effects are still relevant in the simultaneous (REL.PRS)", "prospective" would be "a POST event whose prequelae are already relevant in the simultaneous". But we need to get it from two or more reliable, reputable secondary sources. (Right?). I don't have any of those books; I've borrowed most of them in the past, but don't have them right now. But Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfected (no pun intended) by next week. Eldin raigmore (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

CHON

You may want to take a look at CHON, an article you have previously edited and commented on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Teahouse question has been answered

Hello, Eldin raigmore. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

Congratulations! You have earned the

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete references

A few years ago, you inserted references to ‘Hutchisson 1986’, ‘Capell 1971’ and ‘Beaumont 1976’ at Grammatical number. Could you please complete them with titles at least, and preferrably other details such as first name, publisher, perhaps place of publication &c.?

― 200.219.132.105 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to notice your question.

•Hutchisson, Don. 1986. Sursurunga pronouns and the special uses of quadral number. In: Wiesemann, Ursula (ed.) Pronominal Systems. (Continuum 5). Tübingen: Narr. 217-255.

Capell, Arthur, 1971. The Austronesian Languages of Australian New Guinea. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics

Beaumont, Clive H. 1976 Austronesian Languages: New Ireland. In: Stephen A. Wurm (ed.) Austronesian Languages: New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study II (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, no. 39) 387-97. Canberra:

Eldin raigmore (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eldin raigmore. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)