User talk:Count Truthstein

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your changes at

Hey just took a look at the discussion for the tense-aspect-mood article. I am with you that that article needs to be deleted. It's a mess, but mainly it's just incorrect (and I'm a linguist who specialized in things like tense, aspect, and mood). Good job on nominating it for deletion. Too bad it was approved to be kept but hopefully that can be reconsidered. Drew.ward (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. These people keep arguing that there was a debate and consensus yet totally ignoring the fact that neither the initial AFD nor the current review haven't touched at all (aside from our own comments) on the subject of the article! If the world worked like this we'd have something like "The united states invaded Mexico today because 7 people at a bar in Toledo, Ohio were asked if beans were brown and consensus was that yes, they are."

It's really annoying. I'm not that concerned about this particular article but I am continuously annoyed when these linguistic articles keep either popping up or being rewritten by non-linguists and that the review process doesn't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with getting input from actual linguists! argh! Drew.ward (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the range of views expressed in the deletion discussion, keeping the article was the only sensible choice. The other contributors to the discussion did not see the same problems in the article as I did or did not consider them to be as serious as I did. The discussion would have benefited from wider participation but it is not obvious how this could have been achieved.

One question is whether a badly deficient article should be kept if the possibility exists of a good article being written on the same subject. Many contributors argued that the subject was notable, which it could be, depending on what the subject actually is: it could be the specific concept "tense-aspect-mood" in a particular linguistic theory, or it could be the interaction of the three in general. The latter is more notable in my opinion, and this is why I have suggested re-naming the article "Tense, aspect and mood". Count Truthstein (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have edited the article or its talk page, I'd like to let you know that the article English conjugation tables has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English conjugation tables. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please hit me up offline. My email is on my user page. ThanksDrew.ward (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your rationale for removing the mention of split infinitives from the English grammar page? Historically surely one of the most debated topics within that subject - needs at least a mention and brief explanation, 'd have thought? Victor Yus (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be mentioned, I only question where. It was under the verb phrase section giving an infinitive phrase as an example. There wasn't a lot of detail about infinitive phrases and it wasn't a section about infinitive phrases in particular. Now I suppose there are two possible reasons for this: one is that we don't want a lot of detail, because this section is about something else and it would only make it more confusing; the other is that we do want more detail and the article needs to be expanded. I felt that it gave too much prominence to the prohibition against split infinitives, as it is not accepted by professional linguists who have studied English and of course people reading the article aren't so interested in incorrect theories. If there isn't much else to be said about infinitive phrases, it will of course look prominent. Infinitive phrases are a type of verb phrase so this information is in the right section. I suppose the options are either to expand the section, or to put the information in another article which is linked to. Split infinitives are covered in other articles in Wikipedia, most notably Split infinitive so it is not a question of information being missing. The goal is for the reader to be able to find information if they want it, without being tripped up by it if they are not interested in it. I don't think it is a big deal in this case, just that removing the mention of split infinitives was a slight improvement. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a mention in the article on English clause syntax in the non-finite section. (Although perhaps the non-finite constructions should be moved out of that article as they are not always thought of as clauses.) Count Truthstein (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if we just give a brief "(see also split infinitive)" in the place where we mention infinitive phrases on the English grammar page? That seems to be the right place to mention it, and it seems to be something that people would be expecting to find somewhere in an article on the topic of English grammar (even though we know that the alleged prohibition is not well-founded). Victor Yus (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if people are expecting to find it it's worth mentioning. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the backup...especially at the risk of being accused of theorizing! ;)

Any ideas on how to to get that debate onto the fact that I could care less about their personal views on tense and just want the article on grammatical tense to be about how tense is grammaticalized lol? I've said that every possible way I can think of but it's like everyone except for the two of us are having an entirely different debate!

I'm at a slightly comical loss.Drew.ward (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Linux.) Tuntable (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Medende. As you have found out, there are a bunch of invasive people who are privately imposing the developments of the Linux article. They have being doing so for at least quite a few years now. I want to get rid of them, and let the Linux article be reshaped to reflect the real world. You are welcome to support my poll about the Linux-GNU/Linux controversy at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#Linux_is_a_.2AKERNEL.2A.2C_Not_an_OS Medende (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing my missing "1=" in Representation theory of the Lorentz group. BTW unescaped "=" becomes a candidate error for checking with my user scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it wrong. The right way is

I'd heard about this before but was looking for a + sign at the bottom of the page. But I think I've found it now, it's the "Add topic" tab (which contradicts the page you linked to...). Count Truthstein (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Do you think Representation theory of the Lorentz group is moving in the right direction?

I plan to add more. This section User:YohanN7/Representation theory of the Lorentz group#A nontrivial example is a draft of how a description on the spinor representation might look.

Best regards, YohanN7 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an incomplete understanding of the subject but I will keep an eye on the article to see if I can make any comments. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) 64.17.96.237 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current