User talk:Chenopodiaceous

Use of minor edit flag
Hi, and thanks for your contributions. This was a great edit but not a minor one. It's better to leave the box unchecked unless it is a truly tiny edit. Best wishes, --John (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Organic synthesis
Hi - I just wanted to thank you for your cleanup of Organic synthesis - nice work! Walkerma (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (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) 14:07, 24 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message
I see too many reversions of correct edits and would like to appeal for review to someone who knows more about English writing than the folks who are doing these reversions. I will not get into edit warring, but all of my edits are for good reason and intended to improve the quality of Wikipedia for all users.
 * If your edits are being removed, but you think they are valid, you should discuss the edits on the article talk page with the other editors involved, to arrive at a consensus. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Aesop may have been...
To my eye, having studied the English language at least as long as you, the final sentence in your user summary seems to imply that you are never (or seldom) wrong. I often feel that way too...and in the case of your recent change have reverted you because you seem not to have looked closely enough at what is being said. The whole section is about the claim that Aesop "was" African, but in the case of Lobban there is the additional speculation that he "may have been" a Nubian storyteller too. That qualifies it for a tense in a different mood, in this case what used to be described as the potential subjunctive. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the question of "double hypothetical" in favor of irrelevant grammatical contortions about mood and tense. There is no such thing as evidence, speculation, or hypothesis that something "may be" or "may have been" true. These three terms already incorporate the uncertainty of any proposition to which they apply and it is meaningless to pile more uncertainty onto it. For example, "I speculate that your true name may be Josephine" says no more than "I speculate that your true name is Josephine" or "your true name may be Josephine". In fact, it says less, because my speculation can't possibly be wrong. Double speculation merely expresses uncertainty of a proposition that has already been posed as uncertain. Whether the uncertainty is about a past or a present event is immaterial.


 * An exactly analogous case is "I speculate that this flipped coin may land on its edge." Such a speculation, like the one about what Aesop "may have been", can never be falsified, for if the coin should land on a face or it were shown that Aesop wasn't a Nubian storyteller, neither speculation could be stated to have been wrong. Assertions that can't be falsified have no place in rational discourse (let's exclude religion).


 * I have re-reverted the passage and repeat my request: before reverting, please request explanation. There are solid, defensible reasons for my edits and I welcome the privilege of explaining them to others who care about language.Chenopodiaceous (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was wrong in describing the original wording as in "the potential subjunctive" mood. It is in fact in the indicative present perfect tense in potential mode. Descriptive grammars have changed since the mid-20th century, though; at one time I acted as an encyclopedia editor where we were ruled by the Chicago Manual of Style, but I don't have that to hand. Are you asserting that what used to be a valid grammatical construction is so no longer? In that case Wikipedia needs more than simply your assertion as explanation. Could you point me to a source? Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference -- I wasn't familiar with the designation "potential mode". Again, though, you misunderstand the edit, given that you make no reference to the double hypothetical. There is nothing grammatically wrong with saying "Aesop may have been a Nubian storyteller." Nor is there anything grammatically wrong with "It is speculated that Aesop may have been a NS."

There is no grammatical dispute here. If you're looking for that, please look elsewhere.

I predict (or assert, or speculate) that today at 3:30 in the afternoon, you may get a bikini waxing.

This is a grammatically perfect construction, and moreover is strictly true. And strictly useless. It is a tautology; it tells you nothing you did not already know.

That is precisely the problem with the assertion in question. It is useless because it cannot be falsified. If your speculation about the speculative statement about Aesop were shown to be correct (good luck with that), you could then claim that you had incontrovertible evidence that he may [might] have been an NS. But you already knew that. You had no need to speculate about it! And you still wouldn't know whether he was an NS, only that he might have been!

Still don't get it? Try this view: "I speculate that X is true" => I suggest, but do not know, that X is true. "Aesop may have been an NS" => I suggest, but do not know, that Aesop was an NS.

"I speculate that Aesop may have been an NS" => I suggest, but do not know, something that I suggest, but do not know. Do I have to point out the silliness of such a statement?

Chenopodiaceous (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-appointed expert
Not sure if BrE is your native variety of English. I suspect not, having read your Unfowlerian user page, but be that as it may, it would be better to engage in discussion rather than issue edicts. If you want to change the prose chez Ravel, by all means look in at the talk page. You will receive a warm welcome, as long as you seek a consensus rather than issuing a Diktat. Best wishes, –  Tim riley  talk   23:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

DHL and his very short sojourn in Darlington Western Australia
The local usage of english utilised by local historians and their resultant publications suggest that the locality has indeed had guest houses - but the claim of hosting such house utilization in the early twentieth century, is potentially considered highly unlikely, in between the precarious nature of local government regulation and the even more precarious conditions on the scarp, very tenuous sanitation facilities and limited water supply, and somewhat problematic transport contexts - more likely to be as elusive in reality as are the opening passages of 'Kangaroo' in which the eucalypts with white bark seemed to have freaked lawrence out completely.

I may be completely wrong in the hesienbergian sense, if in which case my apologies for my edit of my original text, but the WP:RS for the 'fact' remains elusive, so the weather (supposedly an inspiration for doctors in Perth who specialised in dealing with Tubercolosis in the 1930s to 1950s had Darlington in their sights to send people to stay in houses in the locality for their health) is one thing, as to why or how places were used as guest houses belong to as yet unfound WP:RS, even if Skinner's is identified in material about DHL. JarrahTree 06:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for attention! None of this was on my mind when I replaced the vague word "had" (usable as well for having money as for having babies). We could use your amended wording, or "harbored", or "accommodated", without distortion of meaning. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Having owned a house in darlington in the past which has become real estate porn of recent, harboured is the spelling you are after AU engvar - and the local history people had a person researching the alledged guest houses - but the web links are always poorly if not linked back to refs - https://www.dhg.org.au/ - has accomodation - lazy and obvious, there were more than they identify - a better way into the mysteries is https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/research?keyword=guest%20house%20darlington but then there are three identifiable darlingtons in oz for that matter... JarrahTree 12:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As for your allusion to the street number, you were either neighbour to or preceded by Aikman's and Canny Rose  at minimum... JarrahTree 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates
Hi. I've fully protected the page Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates for the next 2 days due to the edit war that is happening there which you are involved in. Using edit summaries to discuss the change isn't the way to discuss and form consensus on a disputed edit. For this particular page the election cycle is now over and as such this page is more akin to an archive than an article. This means that the bold revert discuss cycle is even more useful here, in that once your bold edit has been reverted discussion should be held before any reverts happen. I suggest that you refrain from reverting if another editor reverts after the full protection expires, and instead discuss on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions for me as the protecting administrator. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 01:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)