User talk:Lai eric

YO WAZZZZZUUUUUPPP!!!! Kevin Wong (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Singapore pavilion1.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Singapore pavilion1.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Corpus.png
Thank you for uploading File:Corpus.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Singapore pavilion1.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Singapore pavilion1.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet linguistics
Hi there, I noticed that your second Good Article nomination of Internet linguistics has been closed because the peer review is still open. Although the peer review link was removed from the talkpage, there are some further instructions at Peer review, under "How to remove (or close) a request". If you have trouble with that and would like it to be closed so that you can renominate the article, please let me know. -- Beloved Freak  11:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Beloved  Freak, thanks for offering your help. I am very impressed at how helpful WIkipedians are. I am proud to be part of this community. My fellow editor of the page User:Serenehj has managed to properly closed the PR. I have just re-nominated the article under GAN. I noticed that you are a very active reviewer and editor. We would like to invite you to review Internet linguistics if it interests you. Thank you very much.  Lai eric (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do justice to the article. It's not something I know much about at all. As one of the Good Article criteria has to do with how well a topic is covered (how "broad" the article is), I wouldn't really be a good judge of that. Hopefully someone will review it soon, although there is quite a big backlog at the GAN page, so please don't be discouraged if it takes a while. In the mean time, please keep reading the peer review and FAC review that the article had, and perhaps articles on similar topics that have already reached GA or FA. For example, see the ones in these categories: Category:GA-Class Computing articles and Category:FA-Class Computing articles. One of the difficult things about writing your first Wikipedia article is getting the tone and style quite right, so that it fits in with the way other articles are here. I'm a little concerned that you're not quite there yet with this article. It seems almost more essay-like in places. Be caeful of phrases like "It has been argued...", - try and say who has argued what (with a reference). See Manual of Style (words to watch) for more on this. Another general thing I noticed, is that you have several external links within the body of your text. These should be removed and replaced with wikilinks to articles (if there is a Wikipedia article) or just left unlinked. Anyway, good luck with the article, you've obviously put a lot of work into it so far, so keep it up! :) -- Beloved Freak  21:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking through the article and for your valuable feedbacks. Indeed I agree with you that one of the greatest challenge for a new Wikipedian editor is the adaptation of the appropriate writing style since many (including myself) aren't used to writing in an encyclopedic style and tone. Thanks for your suggestions and links to the other related articles, it really helps in giving me a better idea of what is required of a good article (especially so of articles in a similar field). I will always bear your advice mind. It's the kind Wikipedians like you (who offered a helping hand to fellow Wikipedians in need even without them asking) that made me feel the warm spirit of humanity in this otherwise 'cold' world on the Web. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart. Lai eric (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)