User talk:Fasten

Would like to send you a free review copy of the book Holly Lisle's Create A Language Clinic (http://shop.hollylisle.com/index.php?crn=206&rn=367&action=show_detail). Will check back. Holly Lisle


 * That won't be necessary. The authors of the language already have access to the book and probably have read it, if it's worth the time. I don't think I'm about to design any languages myself in the near future. Thank you for the offer. --fasten 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this language about ? I enjoyed reading some of your texts, but what does this have to do with this page ? (I you wish we could talk in German :-) -- 212.144.199.204 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was an extensive common set of metaphors with a sometimes non-trivial and systematic interpretation in many books, movies, proverbs and in history. Would you consider this a language worth documenting (even if, apparently, a larger group of people was aware of it but didn't seem to consider it worth documenting anywhere)? --fasten 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

 * ''This mesage was for Tomchiukc, but s-he doesnt reapear. If you can help me...

Hi,

I was read that you let a message to Pedro Aguiar because he didn't categorize his articles. So, I wanted to ask you if a language can be categorized on two places at time. I was see Bleghish into category conlangs and into category Bleghish, too (last category is a subcategory of conlangs). What is the right categorization? To include same article in both categories or only in its specific category? Do you know it? Conlanger · talk ☏ 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read that you sent a message to .... can be categorized in two places at a time. I have put Bleghish into the category conlangs and into the category Bleghish, too. ...
 * You can put an article into several categories and, of course, these categories can also form hierarchies. In the case of Bleghish I would say it clearly belongs into the category conlangs, because it is the main article of a constructed language, and it clearly belongs into the category Bleghish, because it is an article about Bleghish that does not belong into a sub-category of Bleghish. --fasten 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy answer and corrections. Regarding Bleghish, I didn't put it into two categories, but backwards, sorry for my poor English. When I have seen it into two categories, I thought it was wrong, because in cawiki an article can be into more than one category, but never into a sub-category. I hope you'll understand me. Conlanger ·  talk ☏ 10:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia putting articles into categories and sub-categories thereof is merely not recommended but it is accepted that there may be valid reasons to do so. As I said, I think the main article of conlang has a valid reason to be in both categories, which is, of course, not meant to imply that is has to be. --fasten 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia putting articles into categories and sub-categories thereof is merely not recommended but it is accepted that there may be valid reasons to do so. As I said, I think the main article of conlang has a valid reason to be in both categories, which is, of course, not meant to imply that is has to be. --fasten 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

uncategorized articles
I've wanted to categorize all uncategorized articles. And I found a lot of your articles without category. At first time, I wanted to give to them any category and I found that I believed it was a good category for all of them: Category:Pilingual Dictionary. But now, I'm not sure that is right. I have made a list with the 51 modified articles where I've added this category. If I dammaged your project, please, keep my apologies. If it is like this, please let me undo my wrong changes. Conlanger · talk ☏ 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually that was very appropriate. Thank you very much for your contribution. You've added some articles that belonged into the category "Pi:", though. You can recognize the difference easily because all articles that belong into the dictionary have the prefix "Pi:d/". --fasten 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, later, I thought anything like this, but the first words were German and I got confusion (d can be able to deutsch).
 * I watched your changes at Rencent Changes... Conlanger · talk ☏ 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Yes, later I imagined something like this .... and I got confused (d could mean deutsch) ...
 * Even if d would mean deutsch here, how does that affect your hypothesis that all pages belonged into the category "Category:Pilingual Dictionary"? --fasten 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First I thought: Pi:d/ is for dictionary, but later when I read German words I thoght that could mean deutsch, and I prefeer to stop my action, before to do anything wrong. Conlanger · talk ☏ 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Yes, later I imagined something like this .... and I got confused (d could mean deutsch) ...
 * Even if d would mean deutsch here, how does that affect your hypothesis that all pages belonged into the category "Category:Pilingual Dictionary"? --fasten 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First I thought: Pi:d/ is for dictionary, but later when I read German words I thoght that could mean deutsch, and I prefeer to stop my action, before to do anything wrong. Conlanger · talk ☏ 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First I thought: Pi:d/ is for dictionary, but later when I read German words I thoght that could mean deutsch, and I prefeer to stop my action, before to do anything wrong. Conlanger · talk ☏ 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilingual Dictionary category
All articles uncategorized with prefix Pi:d/ have been categorized in Pilingual Dictionary category. Conlanger · talk ☏ 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. --fasten 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)