Wikipedia needs WebCite.
WebCite needs money.
If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.
Archives |
---|
|
Contents
- 1 A barnstar for you!
- 2 New Yopie stalker
- 3 Disambiguation link notification for May 5
- 4 Singh
- 5 Thank you
- 6 Dipjyoti Borah
- 7 Container categories
- 8 June 2015
- 9 And 11 years later . . .
- 10 thoughts re Comprised of
- 11 As I haven't seen you...
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for September 11
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for September 27
- 14 You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture
- 15 David Godman
- 16 Rajkumar Kanagasingam
- 17 Check your inbox
- 18 Problem IP
- 19 Duax
- 20 ArbCom elections are now open!
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
I hereby award this barnstar to you for you efforts in editing and providing an excellent content Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) |
New Yopie stalker
I noticed you had blocked an IP that was stalking Yopie, I believe I have stumbled upon another one. I will let you take it from here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Davies (photographer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Face (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Singh
The behavioural signs - running round issuing warnings, blanking them on their own page, malformed appeals to EW, language style etc - are that the new-ish contributor to the Singh fashion designer article is another sock of the original promoter, whose name is scattered all over the talk page. However, that is three years ago and so I'm not bothering with SPI. I'll just deal with it as if they are indeed new here. Thanks for stepping in. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the help with IP stalker/troll. I really don't know, what to do with him, because he is not communicating, explaining etc.--Yopie (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Dipjyoti Borah
Hello. May I as ask your clarification and guidance for the future articles like this. You've removed the speedy deletion tag, while it's clearly visible that the person is not significant at all, without any notable sources. As your wrote by yourself - "yes another blogger". So, why not speedy remove and how should I act in the future, when I see article like this. Thank you in advance Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear to you and to me that this person is not of great significance. But Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says that although speedy deletion should be the fate of "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". It's quite imaginable that this person has set up the website; this would be a claim of significance. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, though I am still lost here, probably for good :( Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Container categories
I know it's a few years ago, but I'm wondering what your reason was for changing[1] Category:History of photography to a container category. Why should that category not have articles directly in it? DexDor (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Good question, and I almost responded with a simple "I haven't a clue". But here is the template that I was adding. It then read:
-
- Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages.
- There's a non-trivial jump from that to today's:
-
- This is a container category. It should contain only subcategories.
- The history of photography rightly includes the contemporary history of photography. And now that I rack my tired brains, I dimly remember that what was happening was that people were adding "[[Category:History of photography]]" to biographical articles on Photographers Of Significance To The History Of Photography. Such as, ahem, people who were rather obviously their mates, their employers or themselves. And so I would have wanted a template to make editors (well, thinking editors) think thrice before slapping this category onto anything and everything about photography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Basil Hall Chamberlain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- his quondam friends — all of whom he gradually dropped, with but few exceptions...}} (quoted from Chamberlain's letters. Chamberlain wrote to Hearn's biographer to explain that Hearn
- is Still Alive: Thoughts and Reflections.'' Translated by Joseph Cronin; self-published via [[Lulu (company}|Lulu]], 2015.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
And 11 years later . . .
I thought you would be interested to know that Mike Heath (swimmer), an article you created as a stub in 2004, was promoted to Good Article today. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up, and congratulations on all your good work there. I'm embarrassed to notice that ("in more innocent times" = back when we were lazier or anyway I was lazier) I "created" this stub with no source whatever. (For that matter, "stub" is a generous description; "stublet" would be better.) I vaguely remember that Michael Heath was then about somebody I'd never heard of, whereas I'd been there in search of a British cartoonist of the same name. And therefore a decade ago I created the latter article (here's how I left it) and did some desultory disambiguating. Amazingly little has changed to the article on the cartoonist during the last decade. More amazingly, it doesn't seem ever to have attracted a template saying that it's devoid of sources (for a living person, what's more). It does have the bland statement "A biography for him can be seen at the British Cartoon Archive, University of Kent's website http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/artists/michaelheath/biography", which seems to say "we Wikipedia editors could have used what's at this link to source some of the content, but we couldn't be bothered". One of these decades, I ought to improve that article.... -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hoary, those were different days on Wikipedia. I've been an editor-writer since mid-2009, and in my time and areas of interest, it's been mostly infill and upgrade. Glad I could make you feel a little nostalgia for 2004. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thoughts re Comprised of
More questions/ideas/suggestions!
I don't have access to the contents of S Pinker's book "The Sense of Style" so must ask: do you know whether Pinker actually wrote that "comprised of" is among (what he calls) "fuss-budget decrees" or does he only use the 50 states thing to indirectly point to "comprised of"? What I'm getting at is, can we simplify that sentence "...lists purists' avoidance of comprised of among "a few fuss-budget decrees..."? I just find that clause with the 50 states thing (perhaps unnecessarily?) complicates things.
Under "Evaluation", I'm wondering whether you'd be happy with the 9th paragraph being edited as follows and, with the list that follows now preceding it, moved to "Use":
[list of Trollope, Mailer, etc quotes, followed by]
In a 2011 survey, only 32 percent of the writers and editors on the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary found “comprised of” unacceptable.[35]
Another thing I'm wondering is, should we maybe restructure the article a little so that the "Uses" section is the "arguments for" section, and then maybe a "Deprecations" ("arguments against") subsection? One problem I have with "Evaluation" is that it comes across as a bit of a personal/subjective evaluation. That is, the article as it now stands (to me, anyway) has a pretty strong "in defense of comprised of " tone about it and I think it would come across as more balanced if we didn't have a kind of 'sitting in judgement' ("Evaluation") subsection. (I have also just done some editing to try to address the overall tone by replacing the terms "purists" and "warpath", and possibly others that escape me at the moment, with less loaded ones.)
I'd be interested to know what you think of my Pullum additions. I realize that the one in the Pinker paragraph kind of throws the flow of that section off a bit but without larger-scale restructuring I'm not sure how to fix that. --TyrS 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- TyrS, suddenly I'm sleepy (for "comprised"-irrelevant reasons) and have a (rare) attack of the hiccups, so I'll leave your questions elsewhere unanswered for now. (I will return to them later.) As for what you write above:
-
- I don't have immediate access to Pinker's book but I can and will look at it within a week from now.
-
- I'm not happy with the "evaluation" section even as it is now. It contains a list of uses by writers of note. These are interesting and I think worth inclusion -- somewhere. But they don't directly evaluate the construction (although of course they do so by implication). Something should be changed here, perhaps just the title of the section. (Any ideas for this?) Your proposed addition is very good.
-
- But instances of use aren't (directly) arguments for use. They're just (more or less interesting) data. (I think they're interesting; others may disagree.) Still, if one could combine them with a sourced claim by a linguist that widespread use of a construction by first-language speakers of repute implied that the construction was a good part of the language, then the result would be an argument for use.
-
- "Convinced of" is part of English. Some people use it; some people (I'd guess) find it no more than a slightly pompous alternative to "sure of" or "certain of", and use one of the latter. It hardly generates argument, let alone newspaper articles. Rightly, it has no article in WP. For better or worse, "Comprised of" is different: Some people don't like it, others greet this dislike with puzzlement. I'm convinced that (if this article is to exist) it should have a section on evaluation. (I don't claim either that the content of the current section can't be improved or that the title can't be bettered.)
- Sorry, I'm nodding off at the keyboard (entirely my fault, not yours). -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again, TyrS. Here's what Pinker writes:
- With the backing of data from the AHF Usage Panel, historical analyses from several dictionaries, and a pinch of my own judgment, I will review a few fuss-budget decrees you can safely ignore before turning to living distinctions you'd be wise to respect.
- There follow 25 items in a table. Comprise is one of these. (If Pinker notices that he conflates verb with noun, he doesn't mention this.) Of comprise, he says:
-
- Only Sense Allowed by Purists: contain (The US comprises 50 states.)
- Sense Commonly Used: compose, make up (The US is comprised of 50 states.)
- Comment: The "compose" sense is often used and increasingly accepted, particularly in the passive.
-
- This is all on p263 of the Viking paperback edition that's already cited in the article, and it's all that he writes about the word. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
As I haven't seen you...
...near articles for Indian academic institutions of late, I thought you'd be interested in all the departments that use File:Gautam Buddha University logo.jpg to bring out that masochistic side of you. —SpacemanSpiff 11:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolyn Drake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Gill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transphotographiques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Klein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture
You are invited! Join us remotely! |
|
---|---|
|
David Godman
Any thoughts on David Godman and my comment at the related talk page? The guy seems to be a hagiographer for the sect and I'm toying with sending it to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I learn that Over the next four years Godman did extensive research on Papaji's life and the result was Nothing Ever Happened, a three volume 1,200-page biography. Is Peter Cook posthumously editing Wikipedia? ¶ I can't see signs of notability, but then I have trouble noticing them in most articles about mystical matters. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Some time ago you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Check your inbox
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Problem IP
Advice/help needed: I just undid the remaining edits by 181.143.225.98 over the space of 2-3 months, all but one obvious vandalism. Can this be blocked? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Duax
The article that is the subject of this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Duax) has been enhanced substantially since you weighed in. If you have a moment to take a second look at Robert Duax, that would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)