| Revision as of 20:19, 2 April 2006 editDaniel Collins (talk | contribs)1,773 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:23, 6 April 2006 edit undoSkeezix1000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,242 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| ==Watershed== | ==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. ] 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | 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. ] 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. ] 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:23, 6 April 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)
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:
- 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)