Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 4 May 2006

Welcome!

Hello, JackLumber, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To The Power That Be

Sorry if I offended. You mistook my ham-handed humor as annoyance. Far from it. Typing lacks a good deal of nuance. I assumed that an arch phrase such as "Powers That Be" on WP would be so obviously hyperbolic and out of place as to be funny, but then I also club baby seals for fun. Pax. -- Gnetwerker 18:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. My reply. --JackLumber 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

List of words mainly used in American English

Hello JackLumber - could I suggest that the artcle List of American English words not used in British English is renamed to List of words mainly used in American English, rather than the move you are doing, as the move loses the edit history, which is normally regarded as a Bad Thing. Instructions on moves can be found here: Help:Moving a page Regards WLD 14:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to impose myself on the guys fidgeting around with that page and reverting changes back and forth (I explained the reasons for the rewrite on the talk page thereof at "To ProhibitOnions and the Like of Him."), but if you think we can do it... The same thing is to be done with the List_of_British_English_words_not_used_in_American_English.

'Be Bold' and 'Just Do It'. A rename of the article with a #REDIRECT at the old article name should be fine - I think your proposed title makes more sense - even for almost exactly the same content. If you want to be nice about it, then create a /rewrite article under the new one. If people *really* don't like the new name, then the rename can always be reverted back, still preserving the edit history. Doing a copy/paste of the article text really isn't the recommended way. If you are doing a detailed job, it is also polite to look at 'What links here', and edit all the linking articles to point to the new name as well. I woud imagine the same would need doing for the proposed List of words mainly used in British/Commonwealth English - or maybe we need:

• List of words mainly used in British English
• List of words mainly used in Irish English
• List of words mainly used in Australian English
• List of words mainly used in South African English
• List of words mainly used in New Zealand English
• List of words mainly used in Caribbean English

WLD 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Watershed

I've thought for a few days now that it might be sensible to submit this contentious issue to some external group of WP admins, or something, because the disambiguation approach is a WP thing. To get a judgement from people outside the debate. Yay/nay? I just want it settled so I can put content in the right page. Daniel Collins 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

North American English

I couldn't at first figure out why you were making the revisions to the North American English article to remove the links to the Commonwealth English article. The first concern I had was removing the link to the helpful discussion in the Commonwealth article to Cdn. v. Br. English (which you agreed to restore - thanks). The other reason (which I didn't have space to mention in the edit summary) was the fact that the Commonwealth article dealt with Carribean English, which I thought was a completely logical link in an article on NA English. Only afterwards did I notice that the NA English article deals only with Canada and the US, and does not address the Carribean. So, despite my earlier edit, I do now agree with your edit removing those references, esp. that last paragraph. I ought to have paid closer attention. Skeezix1000 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Regarding your recent edits to several articles "correcting" their comma usage from '"A", "B", "C",' to "A," "B," "C,"', I strongly recommend that you read the WP:MoS#Quotation_marks section of the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. You may also be interested to know that the actual correct formatting for the quotation marks on The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 'as diverse as "agent," "essay," "purge," "stratagem," "ambassador," "axiom," and "pellagra,"' is, in fact, to not use quotation marks at all, but instead to use italics, to make it clear that the words themselves are being discussed, not their meaning. -Silence 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I apologize, I went a tad overboard. Sometimes I forget we are on the Internet, and I don't even realize what I actually am doing, as regarding that italicization thing—yes, I even knew it goes the way you correctly pointed out. Thanks for the heads-up, --JackLumber 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Misplaced Pages's style conventions aren't all easy to get used to; to tell the truth, the first few dozen Misplaced Pages articles I copyedited, I went around putting the commas back into the quotation marks too! That, and overusing serial commas, ignoring the italicizing rules, deleting British English variants willy-nilly, etc. Misplaced Pages editing is always a learning process, so I'm just glad to have helped you with that today. Next time, you can point out to me when I've screwed up some grammatical oddity, and then we'll be even. ;D -Silence 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

American and British English spelling differences

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. 60.240.88.11 has also been blocked. The dispute was not simple vandalism, and being "right" in a content dispute does not make you exempt from 3RR. The best thing to do is to just report the violation, wait for the wrongheaded editor to be blocked and let someone else revert it rather than violate 3RR yourself. The sky won't fall if m:The Wrong Version is up for a few hours. --Sam Blanning 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"vandalism"

Disagreements between editors are not vandalism. Please stop calling your changes reversions of vandalism, because that is not what you are doing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. User:Zoe| 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the dispute between me and that Australian user and then you'll figure out what I meant by "vandalism." Maybe not "vandalism," strictly speaking, but something pretty close to it. JackLumber 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did see them, that was why I made my comment. User:Zoe| 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Who am I? I'm an admin, one of many who might find your failure to follow WP:NPA and may wind up having to block you if you continue. Look, I've been very polite. I said "please", I suggested that you follow dispute resolution, and you respond by attacking me, as well. You might want to tone down your rhetoric. User:Zoe| 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JackLumber, WLD here. It's as well to be as polite as a cowboy in a saloon full of gunmen round here. I'll make the same (verbatim) suggestion to you as to User:Zoe - Might I suggest you both back off, take a few deep breaths, count to ten, then aim to achieve mutual understanding, possible consensus, assume good faith on both parts, make no personal attacks (expressly or by implication) and simply make Misplaced Pages a friendly place to produce ever-improving articles? (fx:Head popping back under parapet) WLD 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Immediately

Hi Jack. That use of 'immediately' that you recently added to the US/British page makes me cringe too, and I'm British. In fact, I thought it was an Americanism! It's not correct usage on this side of the pond, so I doubt that it needs to be listed. However, it may just be that I have failed to notice it. --Heron 10:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: American and British English spelling differences

It will do.

Regards,
Mark (IP: 60.240.88.48) 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: American and British English differences

Becareful what you revert, you reverted some of the changes I made. I beg to differ with your view, that's why you should bring it up as a concensus on the discussion page, before making major changes that some may not agree with, that's how edit wars begin. 60.240.88.48 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Well yes I did delete some of your changes, but then read through some of them and restored some of your changes 60.240.88.48 13:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I protest your accusation, I'm not reverting but making content changes you obviously do not like, It is you who is braking the 3 Revert Rule, by keep on reverting my content changes. 60.240.88.48 13:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And you reverted some my minor changes, and I didn't agree with some of your major changes. 60.240.88.48 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WHY? Because "commoner" reads very badly, it was not the right word to use, bad grammar in other words. I felt "mostly" is also a better word to use and the sentence reads better with this change. 60.240.88.48 13:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Please explain? 60.240.88.48 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not standard to use the word "commoner" in the sense you used it for British English, and Australia English takes its cue from mostly British English, but sometimes from American English. 60.240.88.48 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, do you not watch BBC World, British television programs, read British publications (such as books, magazines), that's how I know "more common" is better to use. 60.240.88.48 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make it right either. 60.240.88.48 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now your starting to get personal. 60.240.88.48 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible violation of 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 60.240.88.48 13:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read though it, I know it well enough, do you? 60.240.88.48 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you are getting very personal, but you also don't seem to know the English language all that well either. Also I have counted three of your reverts as one :) 60.240.88.48 14:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of incorrect spelling on talk pages is okay, stop being picky. It's done by a lot of editors when they are typing fast and then do not check their spelling before saving. Because it's not a big deal. You need to cool off, pal 60.240.88.48 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, to my knowledge I have never complained about your spelling on talk pages! 60.240.88.48 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress

Hi Jack - don't get stressed by taking part in an edit war. It's not that important in the scheme of things. If a change you think is 'wrong' remains unreverted for a day or so, it is no big deal. By trying to 'win' a war, everybody loses, whereas documenting unapprehended differences teaches us all. If there's more than one view about how things 'should' be, document all views in an NPOV way, allow the reader to decide, and move on to better things. The informed reader will come to their own conclusions about which arguments presented have merit, after all...Best Regards, WLD 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Interlocking tower

Thanks for the heads-up. I noticed that it was there just moments before your note; I'll take a closer look later this morning. Slambo (Speak) 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Flammable

Glad to see you commented out the paragraph on flammable. I think your note is probably right. My understanding is that laws were introduced to prohibit the use of inflammable on official labels or notices where they could be misinterpreted, particularly by non-native speakers. I've seen a fire extinguisher, made in Britain in 1988, which nowhere uses the word inflammable but refers to the extinguisher's use on flammable liquids. I would guess that this wording is decreed by a regulation that probably copied earlier regulations in the U.S. Whether people have entirely stopped using inflammable in speech is another matter - I would guess they haven't. Adrian Robson 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be skeptic?

Thanks for the info... ;-) ...Kenosis 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent page moves

Jack, you may have seen here (and if not, you now will!) that I've sent a message to Marco79 about his recent page moves. Hope that's OK with you? I know you've already changed the archive page, but IMHO we either need to move things back or get everything else changed. Incidentally, the revised intro I was writing (mentioned elsewhere) included a comment to try to stop the arguments about non-UK British/Commonwealth English. FWIW, my initial attempt is here. So far, I've only done the bit in the box - which I thought might be a suitable template for the top of all the related pages? (The bit below the ==== line is all the original article.) I would appreciate your thoughts TrevorD 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)