User talk:Camils

Headlines Are Good
So are paragraphs and links. To start a new section with its own headline, click the + at the top of the page next to the edit this page link. Then add a subject and whatever text you wanted to type. This makes it easier for users to distinguish seperate topics of discussion on the page if they are unfamiliar with the content of it. It also allows the wiki software to generate a table of contents once the page is large enoug. These these comments are intended for all parties involved, I'm not singling anyone out. it is much more productive to your cause if you add links to relevant policy when quoting it. Nobody's an expert here, and alluding to Wikipedia policy and guidelines without citations is worse than not mentioning them at all. It is condescending and counterproductive to cooperation, without which this issue (these issues?) will not be resolved. BigNate37 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And a Quick Note: Again, your staff is being rude by changing my proper corrections, back to poor, incorrect grammar, which looks shameful on your (the site's) behalf, as to suggest none of you knows grammatical English or the appropiate literacy skills needed to accuratley call himself an editor.
 * Just to be clear, there is no "staff" here, just a community of editors. Cheers. --mtz206 (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper Grammar: Singular and Plural discussions
Everyone Questioning my grammatical changes note this: A Singular noun must be succeeded by a singular pronouns. The Yankees, is the name of the team. A (one) team is a singular. Though it's comoprised of more than one person, it is only one group a single group needs singualr pronouns. Thus, the Yankees are, is incorrect as 'are' is pluarl. Many argue 'Yankees' refers to the players, but then that muast be specifiec within the context of the sentence. Otherwise it's refenced as a team, club, organization, group of people - singular. So, too, would "their, they, them, themselves" in context of the Yankees (unless specified as the players themselves) must by it, its or itself; and with the singular particples following, making "were", "was", or "are", "is"

Further, in regards to any group - i.e. a sports team or a band - although there are multiple members of these groups, each is still only one group, and thus singular. For exmaple, the band the Tragically Hip is only ONE BAND. Therefore, a sentence should read: The Tragically Hip is (not are) a music band. It (not they) plays (ends with an 's' since it's singular) rock music.

That's all well and good, but it's also stupid. The New York Yankees are a baseball team and the Tragically Hip are a band, most especially because they are North American. American/Canadian English doesn't use constructions like that. Adam Bishop 03:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, Mr. Bishop, but while you are being increasingly rude, you are also wrong. In North America as you say, we use proper grammatical Englsih. Yes, we use 'constructions' like that. It is not stupid. You see it that way, because you cannot comprehend simple logic. "Adam Bishop are going to the store to buy themselves drinks." Now, doesn't that sound stupid, as you like to call it. You are wrong. Deal with it.

Alright, I suppose I'm being trolled, but "proper grammatical English" is irrelevant here. I don't care what the rule is because nobody speaks like that. "The Yankees is" is gibberish. "The Tragically Hip" is not an inanimate object, miraculously inspired with life and capable of playing instruments all by itself. Adam Bishop 04:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Mr. Bishop, as an "aminstrative editor" or whatever your position is with this site, you should know how to properly edit. A singular group, much to your dismay, is, in fact, an inanimate object, as while there are living people to the group, it is only one group, thus needing appropiate grammatical Englsih. No one talks that way, as you say, because sadley, in this day and age, too few people are properly taught how to write and speak. For example, most people today would say "everyone has their own opinion". However, everyone is singular, thus making the noun "his/her", and not "their". You seem to understand that much as I noticed you wrote that correctly, so then why can you not comprehend the same concept (not the exact same as most people would say, because using "exact" and "same" is redundant) with teams? It is shameful that you are a "professional" editior of this site and yet you not only have poor grammatical skills, but are also rude about it as to tell me "it's stuipd; no one speaks that way; it's gibberish," and then further mock me.Further, I have edited works in newspapers and other professional texts. Oh, and by the way, if you are going to tell me how wrong I am, then please, sir, do not contradict yourself in your writing. You personally wrote: The Band isimmensely popular in Canada. This shows that I am right, because the The Hip Is only one band, as you acknowledge, meaning it is singular! I know my stuff. You, sir, are wrong. Deal with it.

No matter how "politely" you say it, calling someone an idiot is a personal attack and you will refrain from doing so. As for your attempts to make the article say the "Yankees is" - I have two words for you: singular plural. Please make sure you know what you're talking about, because I am starting to suspect Adam might be right about the trolling. Moulder 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) MR. Moulder, I do appologise about the language used in my last letter. I was rather frustrated by the fact Mr. Bishop completely disregarded my notation about proper grammar. The fact is, I know I am right, and rahter than trying to comprehend it, or at least speak to me abot it, he simpley shuts my down. Again, I am sorry about my diction, and I will refrain from hereonin. However, I cannot refrain to making changes when they are needed. Thank You, Michael Isenberg - that is my real name, by the way. I am not afraid to hide myself.

I'm not arguing that it is prescriptively "proper", I'm just arguing that I don't care. You can't change something like that without making it sound ridiculous, so stop it. Adam Bishop 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Might I suggest everyone considers the information at Discretionary plurals about this. The use of plurals for sports teams (and bands) is correct. --AlisonW 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By arguing that you do not care, you are not only acting very unprofessional (and rude), but you are aslo acknowledging the fact that I am right and you choose not to accept and admit it. As I've said before, to further prove my point, you even stated within the article that the team "is", then refered back to the Yankees as "are". That's wrong, because "Yankees" is simply the name of the team. Your plural English claims are falsely made. You say my work sounds "ridiculous" but that's because in today's society people are unfarmiliar with proper grammaer, sadely, this includes you, a so-called editior. If this were to be properly implimented as it should be - grammatically correct. The evidence is right infront of you. Sadley, none of you chooses to accept the truth. If it's one organization, than it's one team, thus making it ONE - singular - noun. It's not complicated. Telling me it's ridiculous, now that is truly ridiculous, as you claim. (Please sign your comments with Mike 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC), thankyou)

I'm not sure who that was directed at as nothing in there seems to apply to the previous comment (mine, in fact). I've reverted your change on Boston Red Sox and again must, it seems, advise you that you are in error with this behaviour and it is not acceptable on Wikipedia. As you express yourself so concerned with grammar, or rather you consider others "unfarmiliar with proper grammaer", it would be preferable for you to discuss this on the article discussion pages before making further edits to the relevant articles. Thankyou. --AlisonW 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) To whom it may concern,

I am writing to inform you that a couple of the adminsitrative editors on Wikipedia - Mr. Adam Bishop and Mr. Moulder - have been increasinly rude to me about my editng corrections and very unprofessional about it, telling my that while I may be right in my changes, people do not speak or write in that manner now a days, making their improper grammar "appropiate" this is highly unnacceptable. Unfortunately, in today's society, most people's grammatical skills are quite poor as they have been poorly taught in school and cannot make educated connections on their own as to what is and is not proper grammar. Regardless, just because most people do not know how to write and speak, does not mean they should be accommodated by using grammar that they comprehend. What's more, the aformentioned names were further unprofessional, telling me my work is ridiculous, that I do not know what I am talking about - contradicting themselves after they already acknowledged I am correct, but choose not to admit it for fear of anti-conformaty to improper grammar and aslo for their apparent prides in that they (do not want to) accept that they are wrong. It is becomming increas ingly frustrating for me to sit back and not only take their abuse, but also see that atrocious grammar is being placed on sites by men who claim to be "professionals"


 * Hi. Two quick notes. One, please assume good faith. I don't think anyone has been "increasingly rude" to you. Their comments might be direct and to the point, but they are just trying to be clear. Two, please sign your posts by adding ~ after your comments. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

By increasingly rude, I refer to comments made such as "It's all well, but it's stupid", or "gibberish" or "nonesense" and other means of immediately shutting my notaions down without considering my point or cunsulting me, ironic, because within Wipipedia it states that no one is to shut others down, or something along those lines which is what has been happening to me. As for an early comment to me regarding the plural enlgish, I have answerd this before in one of my first blogs, but, perhaps to your suprise, i do, in fact, understand that in regards to groups, the names (i.e Yankees, The Hip, Maple Leafs, etc) can refer to either the team as a whole, or the players, thus making those words plural or singular, but only in the appropiate context. The usage of 'Yankees', for example, does not always mean it will be plural. In fact, it is assumed (or is supposed to be, but again, people are unfamilair with proper grammar and its stylistics)that the saying the name is still singular unless specified. After all, 'Yankees', though plural, is the team name. There is only one team. Thus, while not every time in an article must it be singular, the opening sentence of every article be it a sports team, a band or another group, must read: The New York Yankees is a Major League Baseball team. You are using it in the conext of the players being the team, when in actuality the context is the team as not only does the opening start with the cirty (singualr), but also specifies the group being a team. "The New York Yankees players lost their 10th straight game." Only here is it okay to say their, as it was specified that the context is that of the players. As you claim to know this difference, I hope that you will take this into consideration, with my future changes to non-specified lines, or those which should properly be singular. Look at it this way: With people, the expression "everyone has their own opinion" is wrong, because everyone is singualr and their is a plural pronoun. Therefore, it should read "everyone has his (or her, if you want to be politcally correct) own opinion." Most people, though, to avoid both gender bias and refrain from always writing he/she, uses 'their' as to sugest both sexes. Im sure you know that is wrong, I just established, because there was no plural ever specified. The same can be said in regards to other forms of groups (teams, bands, etc). Thank You for your cooperation. It is just frustrating from my point to see so many people in toay's society completely ignorant to what is and is not correct and how what is tollerated is not what should be acceptable on account it is wrong. - Mike


 * I guess Grand Funk Railroad should be sent a letter telling them to change their album to "We is an American Band". What I'm getting at is that the majority users on Wikipedia will say "The New York Yankees are", not "The New York Yankees is". Do a google search for "the new york yankees is playing" and one for "the new york yankees are playing". Tell me what you find. Pluralized team names (Packers and Yankees) take plural verbs, and singular team names (Jazz, Heat) take singular verbs. It's not difficult - you're just trolling. Yankees76 21:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even singular team names are typically referred to in the plural. I hear the local announcers saying "...the Minnesota Wild are ahead 3-2..." not "is ahead" because it sounds silly. Incidentally, in reading the various comments of this user Camils, he would be well advised to clean up his own grammar and usage (and spelling) before criticizing others'. Here's the proper and accepted usage in America:
 * The New York Yankees are a Major League Baseball team.
 * "The New York Yankees" is the name of a Major League Baseball team.
 * "New York is leading 2-1."
 * "The Yankees are leading 2-1."

Wahkeenah 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. You could even argue that it's a metonymy. But I won't. Yankees76 00:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh, let's don't go bringing the Mets into it. Wahkeenah 00:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR on New York Yankees
-- pgk( talk ) 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Yankees76 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock request
''I was blocked because I edited the same page 3 times within a 24 hour span. That is ridiculous. Why should I be blocked for making necessary corrections? Isn't that the point of this program, for users to edit the site as they fit so long as their corrections are factually correct and, or, grammatically correct? That is all I was doing; making the necessessary corrections in grammar on account that the current grammar is quite poor. That is not an insult, or attack to anyone, nor the organization as a whole, rather pointing out an obvious flaw - likely because no one is aware of this mistake, seeing how so few are properly taught and properly know grammar nowadays. Perhaps reading the rest of my blogs on my talk will show you what I am talking about. Further, I find it unfair that I should be penalized for doing the right thing, when in responsed by multiple ediors I've been given unfriendly replys. Their arguemnts were that they were being blunt and getting to the point, but shutting me down and writing put-downs is not getting to the point. I admit to retaliating, doing similar things, however, I did appolgise and have refrained from making any negitive connotations since. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about them.''

User:Camils; you have edited a number of pages - mostly US baseball teams - with unacceptable grammatical changes. You have been politely pointed at the standards to which Wikipedia projects work, and our policy on the construction used in such cases. Instead of accepting that information you have chosen to re-make these changes multiple times, thus contravening the three revert rule - a mechanism to stop such activity to that there may be discussion on the matter. The block will, therefore, not be removed. --AlisonW 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Are", not "Is"
Allow me to cite this little segment of a baseball game summary, headlined "The Bostons open the season with the Athletics", and reading in part, "The Athletics were slightly favorites... A wild throw gave the Bostons their first run..." That was from the very first National League game, on April 22, 1876. The plural has been common usage for teams for a very long time, and as such is proper English. 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A fairly safe guide as to whether to use singular or plural is whether the name is preceded by "The":
 * "Grand Funk Railroad is..."
 * "The Rolling Stones are..."

Wahkeenah 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not always, no. First off, though on a little tangent it' realitve to the topic of grammar, saying "very first" as you did in your previous blog to me is redundant. The word 'first' already indicates that nothing preceeded it. Adding 'very' only makes the sentence weaker, as while you are intending to stress the point, it sounds poorly written, just like "the exact same" or "every single one" - they are all wrong. Back to the point, though, having "the" before the subject does not necesessarily make it plural as you are so steadfast in thinking. "The Boston Red Sox is a Major League team". By saying 'team', that indicates the group of players have a commonality and unity of one, thus singular. Also, as mentioned before, Red Sox is merely the name of the team, representing the city. Boston is singular. One of the "English Pluarls" rules on, coincidentally, wikipedia has an example of "England are playing..." That is incorrect. Never in English can the city name refer to the club. The city is one. The team is one. The players comprise to make a single team. Further, as I've also mentioned before, do not contradict yourselves, please. It only validates my points while looking bad on your behalf. One sentence reads, "The team is in the Eastern Division of the American League." This, with proper grammar ("is"), is followed atrociously by, "Their stadium, Fenway Park, was opened on April 20, 1912." This clearly proves your rational of having 'the' before the subject makes it plaurl to be false. It also shows how you contradict yourself within suceeding sentences, and since the team is one, - as you admitting by using "is" - the suceeding sentence should start with "its", as to ackowledge the team's staduim. Just as you cannot change tenses in writing from one sentnece to the next, neither change you change the contenxt of the subject - singular to plural.
 * OK, I'll put this as simply as I can: I'VE GOT IT RIGHT AND YOU'VE GOT IT WRONG. Wahkeenah 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Fix your own mistakes before critizing others'. That should keep you busy for awhile. Wahkeenah 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please please please use four tildes, like this, ~, to sign comments. It is painfully difficult to even follow when and where your comments are added to this page. Take a look around some of the policy pages here at Wikipedia; you are more than welcome to join the community but I'd ask that you learn to respect policy that has been arrived on by group consensus. What we do not need is your single handedly taking on an uncommon grammatical opinion and refusing to negotiate or cite your own examples of popular usage of your form of grammar. Simply by reading your comments about "our staff" indicates to me that you view yourself as different from any other editor here (which you are not unless you make yourself so), and your intended audience seems to be some sort of managerial position, which it is not. In short, you have no basis for arguing your case if you continually refuse to work with others and fail to respect policy. BigNate37 22:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How Ironic, and Sad
First, it is most ironic that you claim I am trolling, tell me that I an uncooperative, and contiue to shut me out - which by the way, capitializing your point is not only a visual form of attack, but also very poor writing as it shows you inability, or ill-ability, whichever you prefer, to thoroughly make your point in writing. Capitalizing your sentence, "OKAY,I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG", is not only very weak, but also an attack against me, something which is not tollerated on this site, last you told me. Further, do not mock me. Yes, that which I just wrote is a command. Do not insult my knowledge by taking lightly my stand point. That, my friends, is hypocrisy from your own regulations of this site.

Further, beleive what you want to, but I know that I am truly right. You say that I have nothing to base my claim on, especially since it "sounds silly". Well, it wouldn't sound silly if it were used more often, as it is meant to be. The Yankees does not always refer to the players. "Adam went to their home to eat their food and watch their TV. Adam said that they were tired to so they went to bed. Adam woke up in the morning." Do you see how missleading that is? By changing the singular (Adam) to plural, the sentences remain correct. However, the context of each sentece changes. Thus, it must always be specified as to whether you're talking plurarl or singualr. The New York Yankees is the best team in the leauge, is grammatically correct. I've said this at least 3 times already, but for you to tell me I'm ignorant, well, each of you is arrogant and ignorant, because while you disregard my claims, you contradict yourself in your writing. I've said this before: you cannot change from plural to singualr without specification! In the page about the Bost Red Sox the second sentnece of the page reads: The team is in the Eastern Division of the American League. That is correct (one team, therefore singular). The follwoing sentence is horrendous as the first word is "their", refering to what, the palyers? "Their stadium, Fenway Park was opened..." It is the not player's stadium but the team's - technically, it's usually owned by another group. Regardless, the first word of that second sentence must be "Its", indicating the team! If you're going to be stubborn and keep the thrid sentence regard the player's (or owners' or whomever) stadium, then that must be specifid! "The player's stadium..." or "The Red Sox' Stadium..." Makes sense, doesn't it?.. Say what you will about all my other "claims" as you say, but this I know 100% that I am right about. Thank You User:Camils 20:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pointing to an example of inconsistent grammar does not justify either of the two intermixed forms. It merely shows inconsistency and does not imply the inferiority of one form compared to the other. Sentences can be changed without requiring those involved to choose a side and argue over grammar and this energy saved by not arguing could be spent improving (gasp!) articles. BigNate37 23:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i am 100% right and you are 100% wrong. Now, go fix your typing errors, and also start using four tildes to end your comments, or else I am done responding. Wahkeenah 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather immature for parties involved to insist that they are right and refuse to cooperate. I'd say that neither of you should be editing these pages until you learn to cooperate. Further to that point, I direct you to the Style Guide, English plural and Resolving Disputes. It is unwise to accept any one party's arguements if they are purely logic based (no matter how valid the arguement) considering we have pages upon pages of previous examples, guidelines, and policy to assist in matters exactly like this one. Spend more time reading before posting next time. BigNate37 23:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pointing out inconsistency proves a valid point as it shows ignorance, and in this case arrogance, too, on the behalf of those who claim to be right while also missrepresenting themselves who claim to be professionals. You are done responding if I don't use titles, you say? Is that supposed to scare me? How much of a differnce does that actually make, any ways? Right, if means that you actually have to work. Also, to Mr. BigNate37, it is ironic you make a point about me learning grammar when you make an error too. "It is unwise to accept any one party's arguements if they are purely logic based (no matter how valid the arguement) considering we have pages upon pages of previous examples, guidelines, and policy to assist in matters exactly like this one." First, you cannot say 'they' following 'any one party's argument', because you are changing the context of the sentence as the subject is being changed. In your sentence 'they' refers to people, although I assume you meant to refer to the 'arguements' You must specify by saying, "It is unwise to accept any one party's arguements if the arguements are......Now that is proper English 101. By the way, in regards to my eearlier remark about inconsistency, I am right in that one cannot change the contect of a sentece when the subject remains the same. "The team (Boston red Sox) is in the American Leauge East Division. Their (Boston Red Sox) stadium, Fenway Park..." "Their" mustread "Its" on account the subject is still the team, therefore making it a singular subject. User:Camils 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)