Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bonewah: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:27, 7 April 2010 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 April 2010: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:56, 8 April 2010 edit undoJ.R. Hercules (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,874 edits added templateNext edit →
Line 238: Line 238:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)</div> <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0032 --> <!-- EdwardsBot 0032 -->

{{uw-3rr|Milton Friedman}}

Revision as of 16:56, 8 April 2010

Archive 1
Archive 2

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Engagement on Lake Huron

Apologies for being so quick to revert. I should have checked properly. HLGallon (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ship photos

Just a quick stop by to thank you for the great job you're doing in adding missing ship photos for practically every US Naval ship in history. Bravo Zulu! SpecMode (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! You just added my father's ship, the USS Searcher (AGR-4). Much appreciated! Hga (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome, and my father really appreciated it as well. After I forwarded him the link, he walked me through the deck of the ship, from the funny forward housing that includes the forward 3 inch gun (needed to be able to discourage frisky Soviet "fishing trawlers", I suspect) to the big rear RADAR, an up and down "waggler" that was used to determine the height of targets (needless to say, Soviet bombers didn't have transponders that returned their altitude :-). Hga (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

New ship articles

Hi - When you create a new ship article could you place
{{WPSHIPS|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}}
on the talk page? No need to fill out the template. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Carpal Therapist speedy declined WP:CSD#G4 does not apply

This was deleted as a result of an expired PROD rather than an AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Bonewah, Nice work on all those ships. I think you're ready to be an wp:autoreviewer, so I've set that flag on for you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Anne Feeney

Did you do any research other than reading the article to come to the conclusion that Anne Feeney isn't notable? I'm curious what motivated you to PROD this article, other than you, personally, not having heard of her. It's not a very good article, but given that anyone familiar with folk music (or traditional labour fight songs) has heard of her, I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that she isn't notable. Folk singers tend not to leave large electronic footprints. A Google search probably isn't going to be good enough to establish her notability within her field. SmashTheState (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The nature of folk music is that it's not going to be closely connected to the Internet. In order to judge whether or not Anne Feeney is notable, one would have to have specific knowledge of her field. Have you done any non-Internet research? Perhaps consulted people who may be qualified to judge her notability? I would suggest to you that a Google search is far from the best way to judge notability, and that it might have been a good idea to, at the very least, consult with some related Misplaced Pages projects (such as the Organized Labour portal) who might have specific knowledge of the subject of the article in question. SmashTheState (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Co-conspirators

Why don't you like it? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Moved to keep the discussion in one place.)
Its almost never right. Conspirator and co-conspirator mean the same thing, the co- is redundant. You add the co- to things which can be done on their own, like pilot or co-pilot, you can be a singular pilot or pilot with someone else, hence the co- prefix. You cannot conspire by yourself, so the co- prefix shouldnt be there, it would be like saying co-partner, you cannot be a partner on your own, so no need to say co in front of it.
You can make a fair case that co-conspirator is ok in some limited cases, for example "X person turned on his Co-conspirators" but you can just as easily write "X person turned on his fellow conspirators" to make clear that he was a conspirator himself at one point.
Where it is definitely not right is on its own, like "X person is a co-conspirator in the murder of Y". X is not, he is just a regular conspirator. The co-conspirator can only potentially be right when speaking about more than one person, and rarely (or arguably never) even then.
Were you speaking of a specific article? Bonewah (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that it's almost never right. See News Archive; it has mentions going back to the 1920s. The OED has references from 1863 and 1866 ("Mr. Bright and his co-conspirators"). I think what you're doing is a case of hypercorrection, "fixing" something that isn't wrong. In particular, why do you think "his fellow conspirators" is better than "his co-conspirators"? I can understand if it's just your personal preference, but "not right" is wrong. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You may be right that it is hypercorrection, but I stand by my statement that it is wrong in the singular "X is a co-conspirator in Y plot" as I said, it is potentially correct in the particular that you mention (fellow conspirator vs. co-conspirator) but no more so than fellow conspirator, that is just a stylistic preference. As for the news archives, just because a journalist uses it, doesnt mean that it is right, although Im curious what the OED has to say beyond when it was used. Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
this is a good example of what I mean when I say its almost never right, as in, most usages of it are wrong, as opposed to there are no instances where it is right. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that on its own, "X was a co-conspirator in…" seems redundant, and certainly I prefer "conspirator". (I wouldn't say it's wrong, and it can even have a useful clarifying purpose, or draw attention to the existence of others: apparently, "lone conspirator" has been used too, e.g. "Hoover names Oswald 'lone conspirator'".) Unindicted co-conspirator is the usual legal term, and "co-conspirator" also is used more generally (where "accomplice" may be used). The difference from "partner" is that "partner" is used as a relationship term, like "classmate" (you can say "my partner" but not "my conspirator"), but when talking of partners in a firm, even copartner exists (to mean "another partner", "fellow partner", etc). The OED doesn't say much (it's under co-), but it says "It is sometimes prefixed to words of L. origin which are already compounded with com- (con-), as co-connexion, -conspirator, -constituent" and later it gives two usage examples of co-conspirator, along with words like co-actor, co-discoverer, co-rival, co-traitor, and co-villager. Anyway, it's a matter of preference, so there's not much to discuss... we just need to be careful not to change "his co-conspirators" to "his conspirators", etc. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the last part (not changing "his co-conspirators" to "his conspirators"), i definitely dont buy the lone conspirator line, but Im guessing that isnt going to come up except as maybe a quote. Regards. Bonewah (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Milton Friedman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.