User talk:Li300

ENB post
Hi! I wanted to respond to your post at ENB about your work being removed by. First off, am I correct in thinking that you are part of this class? If so, then you will need to sign up for the course so your edits are recorded. Your instructor should have a link that will enroll you. If not, I can always add you to the class manually. All of the students that are editing as part of this class need to be signed up on the class dashboard, otherwise we don't really have a way of knowing that you're editing unless a post like the one you made on ENB is made.

Looking at the edits, here are his reversions in order, with his comments and my notes below that:


 * The first reversion, where they stated that what was added was "Demonstrably not the case, as the examples below in the article reveal. Poole must qualify that later in his book.".
 * What was removed was this:
 * Conjoined elements must also be a part of the same syntactic category
 * Offhand what I notice is that the book doesn't mention the exact page number, which is definitely important when citing a book. It's also important to make sure that you are only summarizing what is explicitly stated in the source material, which can sometimes mean that you need to attribute a claim. For example, this looks to be contradicted later in the article so if Poole is citing someone who made a different claim, you should cite that person and also give further context to why Poole is either in disagreement or agreement, which should also be in the book.
 * Offhand what I notice is that the book doesn't mention the exact page number, which is definitely important when citing a book. It's also important to make sure that you are only summarizing what is explicitly stated in the source material, which can sometimes mean that you need to attribute a claim. For example, this looks to be contradicted later in the article so if Poole is citing someone who made a different claim, you should cite that person and also give further context to why Poole is either in disagreement or agreement, which should also be in the book.


 * Second one, where they state "The section is not good in many respects: the same source cited repeatedly without page numbers listed, the direct naming of relatively unknown linguists, a secondary aspect of coordination"
 * This is what was removed:
 * Chomsky's 1957-1965 publications assume that it is possible for coordination to be derived from the coordination of grammatical concepts . However, it is argued by Lakoff and Peters that this is false as not all coordination can be constituents nor can it be from grammatical sentences . This leaves coordination into two different derivations: S-paraphrasable and non-S-paraphrasable.
 * S-paraphrasable, also known as sentence-paraphrasable argues that the order of conjunction is relevant to semantic interpretation . It also allows the use or the reference for respectively, in that order, not necessarily in that order, or vice versa. For example
 * John arrived and Mary left, in that order.
 * John and Mary live in Fowlmere and Duxford, respectively.
 * Non-S-paraphrasable are selectional properties of predicates that requires for a plural or a conjoined subject be alike or make four. It is also the exact opposite of S-paraphrasable.
 * In this situation you repeatedly cited a source and didn't state the respective page numbers. This can be done with the RP template, which can be brought up via the template function or by manually entering it along the lines of . It seems that another issue was that some of the people you cited were not well known linguists. When adding material it's always a good idea to make sure that the people whose claims or opinions you're adding into the article are well thought of enough to where they'd be seen as authorities. This often poses more of an issue if you're giving them a lot of weight (ie, lengthier passages) in the article.
 * In this situation you repeatedly cited a source and didn't state the respective page numbers. This can be done with the RP template, which can be brought up via the template function or by manually entering it along the lines of . It seems that another issue was that some of the people you cited were not well known linguists. When adding material it's always a good idea to make sure that the people whose claims or opinions you're adding into the article are well thought of enough to where they'd be seen as authorities. This often poses more of an issue if you're giving them a lot of weight (ie, lengthier passages) in the article.


 * Third reversion, where they stated "‎Japanese: The section can be good. But the examples need to be glossed properly, i.e. rendered in Roman alphabet with English glosses lined up. I suggest using tables to do this. As it is, it's not accessible to a general audience"
 * I'm not going to list the info here since it's lengthier, but the main gist here is that they want templates for the writing. A good way to get a proper template is to copy one from an existing article and adapt it for your purposes. I believe that you should also be able to craft a table using Visual Editor as well. The next two look to be more notes on the template:
 * It's improved some, but it still has a lot of Japanese in it that is not accessible to 99% of the potential readers. More conversion to the Romanized alphabet is needed, for instances with the suffixes. Producing the examples as tables would be best. Check out what your peers working on small clauses are doing in this regard.
 * Use italics for examples in the running text, not quotation marks.

I hope that this helps you out some - I've also tagged on this as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Linguistics300", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Linguistics300, a username which implies multiple users.You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That choice is taken, you will need to choose something else; you do not need to make a new request, simply overwrite your old choice with your new one. You can use Special:CentralAuth to see if a potential choice is available. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

globally renamed Linguistics300 to Li300
globally renamed Linguistics300 to Li300  Dloh Cier   ekim  12:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)