User talk:Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs

Modern languages
Formatting I reverted your edit because of the way that it was formatted--you inserted a comment which is completely appropriate for the talk page into the article itself. I honestly don't have a horse in this race and I'm too ignorant to be of any assistance, but there is a strict division between the content of the encyclopedia and discussion of that content. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck It's always nice to see an enthusiastic and polite new Wikipedian. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversial tag on article of 'Modern languages'???
Why can't I show to everybody that the article is in dispute??? Shall there remain the illusion to the everyday-not-looking-on-the-discussion-page reader, that all is fine with that article besides some quotations/references missing??? the definition of "dead" vs. "modern" does not seem logical to me - it just repeats the legend of "Latin being dead"! No wonder: it's school derived - can thence come a thing intelligent, apt for the complicated truth?

And Latin is a "human language that is currently in use": news-page completely in Latin Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia maintenance tools
Huggle and Twinkle may be used for a number of purposes, not only to revert vandalism. Twinkle provides the ability to identify a reverted edit as a good faith edit. If you examine the edit summary here, you will see that such was the case. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)