User:Jeh/notes

cot / cob

maybe
Qubic may refer to:


 * Qubic, the trade name for an apparatus for a 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe game originally marketed by Parker Brothers
 * Qubic experiment, a project to measure the cosmic microwave background (CMB) polarization anisotropies

"A" vs "An"
http://www.grammar.com/a-vs-an-when-to-use/

"There are a number of", etc.
From the Gregg Reference Manual, 10th edition, by William A. Sabin, page 266:

"The expression 'the number' has a singular meaning and therefore requires a singular verb. 'A number' has a plural meaning and requires a plural verb.


 * The number of branch offices we have in the Southeast has increased in each of the last five years.


 * A number of our branch offices are now located in suburban malls rather than in the central business district."

Also, from this example at oxforddictionaries.com, showing proper use of a phrase including the word "number": "there are a number of reasons why ..."

Another reference, this one from the BBC: "Some singular expressions referring to more than one person or thing are commonly used with plural verbs, 'a number of' is one of those expressions. ‘There are a number of people in that room.’"


 * Here's a fourth reference, this one archived from oxforddictionaries.com - alas they seem to have removed the "askoxford" section of their pages, but archive.org saves the day.
 * "''Although the expression 'a number' is strictly singular, the phrase 'a number of' is used with plural nouns (as what grammarians call a determiner). The verb should therefore be plural: 'A number of people are waiting for the bus'. This is not the case with 'the number', which is still singular: 'The number of people here has increased since this morning.'"

-- jeh

A more general discussion using "a lot", showing the difference between usage with count nouns and mass nouns: "uncountable noun, singular verb:

'There's still lots of work to do.' 'A lot of time is wasted in meetings.' plural noun, plural verb: 'A lot of people were affected by the storm.' 'There are lots of interesting things to do here."

see also this website for an explanation of the usage of "a lot" with countable nouns. At best, both singular and plural usage are acceptable, in which case, you shouldn't change the status quo in the article; but really, plural verb with plural nouns is preferred, so I suggest just dropping this silly edit war. LjL (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Briefly, the subject of "There are a number of (countable objects)..." is not "a number". The subject is "(countable objects)". Thus the subject is plural. Sticking "a number of" in front of it doesn't make it singular any more than would "23". Subject-verb agreement therefore requires that the plural form of the verb be used. Jeh (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See also: , this is at university-level study of grammar, so it's not surprising most of us non-English majors haven't heard of it. Google: "a number of" grammar specifier quantifier

"The error you have made, the grammar point you've missed, relates to the fact that--just like a lot of, a great deal of, or a couple of--a number of is not a true partitive. (As I learned quite recently, a noun is partitive if the parts can be divided from the whole.) Dozen is a true partitive. We can say a dozen, two dozen, three dozen, dozens of, etc. Piece is another true partitive. We can say a piece of cake, two pieces of cake, several pieces of cake, but we cannot grammatically say two lots of, two great deals of, three couples of, nor can we say three numbers of.  By virtue of not being partitive, these expressions are quantifiers.  Quantifiers function completely differently, grammatically-speaking, from true partitives, including the fact that the main verb MUST agree with the subject, not its quantifier.   A lot of effort goes into these answers vs. A lot of students have admitted to smoking marijuana. Both of these sentences are grammatically correct because a lot of is a quantifier in each sentence. True partitives, like piece, on the other hand, always yield to/agree with their quantity: There is a piece of pizza on the table. There are two pieces of pizza on the table. I want a piece of cake. I ordered three pieces of cake. Two pieces of pie are left on the plate."

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59753/a-number-of-students-vs-the-number-of-students

http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/numbers/the-number-vs-a-number/

Please don't make changes that don't affect the rendered text
This is purely my personal opinion, not official WP policy or guideline or even an essay—but speaking strictly personally, I would like you to conisder that edits that do not affect the rendered text, such as [DIFF LINK this edit] that you made to ARTICLE might be better if they were not done.

Specifics:


 * Many editors prefer to use two spaces at the end of sentences to make them visually easier to find in the edit window. And others do it just out of old typewriter habits. For example, the previous sentence has two spaces after it, while this one has just one. You'll notice that they render the same. Similarly, it is a habit with many to hit the space bar at least once after every period, even if the period is at the end of a paragraph. And again, there is no effect on the rendered text, so no reason to remove it.


 * Some editors like to break up the Wikitext by hitting Enter after each sentence. Or even after a major phrase. I often do this myself, depending on the article and the text. In complex text this can makes the edit window much less cluttered and easier to navigate (want to move by sentences? Just hit up arrow or down arrow) and can help organize the writer's thoughts. Text followed by a single newline and more text does not produce a paragraph break. (n.b.: In a list item such as this, one can't do that; a newline ends the list item.) It takes two newlines to do that. The paragraphs following this item list were entered this way and you'll notice that they render like any other paragraph. (For an essay presenting both points of view, see WP:Don't use line breaks.)


 * A single blank line in the Wikitext before or after a section head—or both—doesn't render. As with so many other things here, many editors like to leave these blank lines to make it easier to find things in the edit window.


 * Many editors like to break up a lengthy template, particularly citation templates, by using one line per parameter (again, usually to make the parameters easier to find in the edit window). If you find it that way, please leave it that way. There is actually a guideline on this, that template styles should be not be converted just for the sake of personal preference.


 * And in that case, a space before the vertical bar on each line doesn't render.


 * On the other hand, some editors do prefer to pack the edit window as densely as possible. Either way this is a personal preference and the preference of the previous editor(s) should be respected, just as is done with WP:ENGVAR.


 * In headings such as == Text ==, it doesn't matter whether there are spaces between the equal signs and the heading text. The spaces don't affect the rendered text.


 * Nor is a space required in  . Nor is a space harmful.


 * A space between the asterisk and the first text letter in a list item does not render. This particular list has several items with the space, several without; you'll notice they all render the same. Some editors do like to include the space to make the edit window less "busy".


 * Changing the case of the first letter of an article title in a pipelink will have no effect on the rendered text; what will render is, after all, the text after the pipe. The actual article is always stored with a leading capital but lowercased article title links do work because there is a "silent redirect" that takes care of this. There is no reason to change the Wikitext if it already renders as appropriate for the usage.


 * The "File:" prefix does the exact same thing as the "Image:" prefix, so there is no reason to exchange one for the other. Particularly in the case where it is an image, why change it to "File:", when "Image:" is more informative to the next editor?

Note that if a particular style of using whitespace or newlines or etc. in the wikitext is considered an "optional style", then changing them purely for personal preference is contrary to an Arbcom ruling.

I'm not reverting these changes (although as I work on the article in the future it may well be "migrated" back to my preferred style) and I certainly am not going to bring any "cases" anywhere. The reason I'm leaving you this note is to ask you to consider: While such edits do not affect the text seen by the reader, they do increase editor workload. They complicate the editing history of the article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Many of these changes can be difficult to see and evaluate in the diffs display. This can sometimes cause a lot of wasted time and effort for later editors trying to figure out what a previous edit has done.

All because of edits that do not improve the article for the reader, not in the slightest detail.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. I realize you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia as you see it, but please consider that you are making unnecessary work for those who follow you.

--

All for changes that do not affect what the reader sees; indeed, they achieve no useful purpose whatsoever.

--


 * Actually, I think this is covered by some guideline or other, but I can't offhand say what or where. In any case, though, Jeh is quite right: the change achieves no useful purpose whatever, and can sometimes cause a lot of waste of time and effort for an editor trying to figure out what an edit has done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from churning the whitespace
To echo the comment above this, edits like this one that you made, that do nothing but remove extra spaces, are not a good idea. For starters, many editors prefer to use two spaces at the end of sentences to make them visually easier to find in the edit window. Such a practice is harmless, because the HTML rendering engine ignores the double space and readers of the article never see any difference. Furthermore, changes such as yours just complicate the editing history of an article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Finally, another way of looking this is that if removing extra spaces were a useful thing to do, Wikipedia would already have bots that do it. Humans should spend their efforts here doing more valuable things that the bots can't do. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Things you don't have to do as a Wikipedia editor
Good news, everybody!

''"Correct" two spaces at the ends of sentences to just one space. ''

Many editors prefer to use two spaces at the end of sentences to make them visually easier to find in the edit window. And others do it just out of old typewriter habits. But the rendered text comes out the same. For example, the previous sentence has two spaces after it, while this one has just one. You'll notice that they render the same.

Remove an "extra" space (or two) after the last sentence of a paragraph

Similarly, it is a habit with many to hit the space bar at least once after every period, even if the period is at the end of a paragraph. And again, there is no effect on the rendered text, so no reason to remove it.

Remove intra-paragraph line breaks

Some editors like to break up the Wikitext by hitting Enter after each sentence. Or after a major phrase. I often do this myself, depending on the article and the text. In complex text this can makes the edit window much less cluttered and easier to navigate (want to move by sentences? Just hit up arrow or down arrow) and can help organize the writer's thoughts. Text followed by a single newline and then more text does not produce a paragraph break. This paragraph includes a number of extra newlines and you'll notice that it renders like any other paragraph. (For an essay presenting both points of view, see WP:Don't use line breaks.)

 Remove single blank lines before or after a section head—or both

These single blank lines don't render. As with so many other things here, many editors like to leave these blank lines to de-clutter the edit window.

Remove newlines from template references

Many editors like to break up a lengthy template, particularly citation and infobox templates, by using one line per parameter (again, usually to make the parameters easier to find in the edit window). If you find it that way, please leave it that way. There is actually a guideline on this, that template styles should be not be converted just for the sake of personal preference.

Remove or add extra spaces or tabs before or after the vertical bars in cite templates, infoboxes, any templates at all for that matter.

They don't render, either.

''Remove or add spaces between the "=" in a heading and the heading text. ''

It doesn't matter whether there are spaces between the equal signs and the heading text. They don't render. (Are you detecting a pattern here?)

''Nor is a space required in. Nor is a space harmful. ''


 * On the other hand, some editors do prefer to pack the edit window as densely as possible. Either way this is a personal preference and the preference of the previous editor(s) should be respected, just as is done with WP:ENGVAR.


 * A space between the asterisk and the first text letter in a list item does not render. This particular list has several items with the space, several without; you'll notice they all render the same. Some editors do like to include the space to make the edit window less "busy".


 * Changing the case of the first letter of an article title in a pipelink will have no effect on the rendered text; what will render is, after all, the text after the pipe. The actual article is always stored with a leading capital but lowercased article title links do work because there is a "silent redirect" that takes care of this. There is no reason to change the Wikitext if it already renders as appropriate for the usage.


 * The "File:" prefix does the exact same thing as the "Image:" prefix, so there is no reason to exchange one for the other. Particularly in the case where it is an image, why change it to "File:", when "Image:" is more informative to the next editor?

Note that if a particular style of using whitespace or newlines or etc. in the wikitext is considered an "optional style", then changing them purely for personal preference is contrary to an Arbcom ruling.

I'm not reverting these changes (although as I work on the article in the future it may well be "migrated" back to my preferred style) and I certainly am not going to bring any "cases" anywhere. The reason I'm leaving you this note is to ask you to consider: While such edits do not affect the text seen by the reader, they do increase editor workload. They complicate the editing history of the article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Many of these changes can be difficult to see and evaluate in the diffs display. This can sometimes cause a lot of wasted time and effort for later editors trying to figure out what a previous edit has done.

All because of edits that do not improve the article for the reader, not in the slightest detail.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. I realize you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia as you see it, but please consider that you are making unnecessary work for those who follow you.

--

All for changes that do not affect what the reader sees; indeed, they achieve no useful purpose whatsoever.

NOTBROKEN
Hi. I noticed one of your "fix link" edits to one of the pages I watch, and then looked at several of your other edits that have similar summaries.

Please be aware that Wikipedia actually discourages "fixing" links to redirects that are not broken -- see WP:NOTBROKEN: There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace with.

Such edits do not improve the reader's experience. But they clutter the article edit history unnecessarily, and they make extra work for other editors (since nearly every edit that anyone makes will normally be examined by several other editors).

I appreciate that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but this activity is actively discouraged, for valid reasons.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. Jeh (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

DR, etc. pages
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Wikipedia:Arbitration

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Noticeboards

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

Wikipedia:Editor assistance

Wikipedia:General sanctions

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Wikipedia:Third opinion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

EW0
Your recent editing history at Elcaset shows that you are currently engaged in the beginnings of an edit war. Per WP:BRD, if your edit is reverted, please do not simply re-revert. The best practice at that stage is to discuss the changes you want to make, using the talk page to work toward a version that represents consensus among editors. 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please also be aware that editing articles to change them from one style to another, for no other reason than to match your preference, is contrary to an Arbcom decision. Refer to our Manual of Style for our "house style", covering all manner of issues relating to English usage.

Re this particular issue, per MOS:SERIAL the serial comma is neither universally supported nor deprecated. If there is no possible misinterpretation or ambiguity either way, then either form is acceptable. In this case I would say that the form "..., Sony, and Teac" makes it more clear that Sony and Teac are separate companies; removing the serial comma makes it ambiguous. But that's just my preference. Neither form is incorrect and therefore the Arbcom ruling against making such "style preference" changes applies. '' Jeh (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Personal note:  This is a very minor issue and I don't actually think it warrants a talk page discussion; the above is largely boilerplate. I'm just going to drop the issue here. But as a new editor, WP:BRD and the point about not changing things simply because you prefer them a different way are things you should probably be aware of. Cheers! Jeh (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

BLPNAME
Hello, I'm jeh. Please be aware of a specific provision in WP:BLP, "Privacy of names": The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

(emph. added)

I appreciate and understand your enthusiasm and effort for adding information to Wikipedia. However, I see no indication that parents' or spouses' names are "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of" $(ARTICLENAME). Accordingly, I have removed those details from their articles, and I ask that you not re-add such information the future. Thank you for your understanding.