User talk:Chris the speller/Archive 4

Removal of hyphens in complex adjectives.
Hi Chris - I notice you've been removing hyphens from linked adjectives and adverbial modifiers in articles. Please do not do that for articles on new Zealand subjects, as the use of a hyphen is correct in New Zealand English and so should be retained. Grutness...wha?  21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing hyphens after adverbial -ly words is almost universally recommended in English. Tony   (talk)  04:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Self copy-editing
Sorry to set off your message alarm so often; but the idea of quoting Fowler and spoiling his grammar does not appeal. ;-> If this meessage has typies, I won;t fix 'em. But you are the person who is getting advice; to put mine more shortly: Like most of English, there is no absolute rule. Those who think so have learnt that English has rules, but not yet learnt that she is not bound by them.

If your Wiki-gnoming has pushed two people's buttons, as here, it is the role of a good self-effacing gnome to find something else to do with AWB. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Chiltern Railways
Did you not read my edit summary before reverting my revert? Normally there is no need for a hyphen when using an adverbial modifier, but the phrase "a wholly-owned subsidiary of X" is a special case where the hyphen is correct. "Wholly-owned" here, used attributively as an adjective describing "subsidiary", is an adjectival phrase in its own right; you could not reasonably speak of "an owned subsidiary of X", only a "wholly-owned subsidiary" or "a partially-owned subsidiary". In this respect, it is not the same as "a fully refundable fee" or "an amazingly good performance" where a hyphen would be otiose. -- Alarics (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's three people who have objected to the same program. Please stop now; you are violating the rules of AWB. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Thank my friend. I have been hospitalized for a week now and tomorrow I will undergo double bypass surgery. Hope to be back in Wikipedia soon.Tony the Marine (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Doubly linked list
I declined your speedy-deletion tag but after reading the comment a third time, I now suspect that I misunderstood your intent. If you wanted to move the current article to that page, then the tag makes more sense. I would ask, however, that you first propose the move on the article's Talk page to confirm that the move is uncontroversial. If no one objects after a few days, I will be happy to help execute the move. Rossami (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * re: confusion: No, in hindsight I think I was the one confused.  Unfortunately, db-move is so frequently mis-used that I am in the bad habit of assuming that the template is misapplied until proven otherwise.  When the accompanying comment is unclear (or when I'm too tired to read it correctly), the problem gets worse. re: Talk:Doubly labeled water: I am probably reacting with an excess of caution but Doubly-linked list has more history.  I did not mean to imply that the formal Requested Moves process was needed but was suggesting just an informal note.  Or if you still think that is overkill, go ahead and retag it and I will abstain.  Thanks for your understanding.  Rossami (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Page moved, FYI. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Duda
Sorry, I don't quite understand the "misspelling" in Jörg Duda, please explain #91 and #93, I will watch here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "perfomances" is incorrect.
 * "performances" would be the correct spelling. Two "r"s are needed.
 * I used &amp;#91; and &amp;#93; to create the square bracket characters, because using the actual characters "[" and "]" breaks the external link.
 * Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  13:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Helped in two ways, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bitte schön. Chris the speller   yack  14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens
Hello. I've noticed that you've removed hyphens from the term "fully-associative cache" in both PA-8000 and StrongARM. You've cited WP:HYPHEN as the reason why, but shouldn't the term in question be a case of the third use (regarding compound modifiers), which recommends the use of hyphens? Regards, Rilak (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. However, I would like to add that the practice of hyphenating "fully associative" is standard in the literature. Would that have any weight whatsoever? I might have to find a technical dictionary and see what they recommend since computer architecture terms sometimes differ from standard English. Regards. Rilak (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"surname" pages that are only partly of the "surname" kind
Please see my recent edit to Uziel, which contains an (invisible comment) "follow-up" to this (invisible comment) edit from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uziel&diff=prev&oldid=159515625 --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter
User:Jezhotwells has this article up for peer review. I'm wading in, but noting your perceptive recent amendment of the Henry Wood article I think your eagle eye for excessive US-style hyphens (and any other infelicities) would do the article a power of good if you can spare the time. Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Capital! Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well-liked
The use of hyphenation in "well-liked" is legitimate in many contexts. While it's unnecessary in most situations if the adjective doesn't appear immediately before the noun, the hyphenation doesn't do any harm -- and in some cases, the expression may be clearer if the hyphen is present. For instance, in "generally well liked," the absence of the hyphen creates a false cue -- "generally" could at first seem to modify "well" rather than "well liked." Clarity is the most important consideration. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Generally well liked" is an actual example, which I have reverted. Without the hyphen, there is a momentary miscue that "generally well" could mean "generally in good health." Sometimes it's important to "ignore all rules," and not get hung up on what the style guide says. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

142nd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)
Would you mind proofreading this article 142nd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)? Aleutian06 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sir! Aleutian06 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Onboard"
"onboard" is a legitimate word – see :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD
An article you have edited, Jonathan Stephen is under AFD.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Milestone
Buster Seven   Talk  13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

HBLR
I did lot's of work on Hudson Bergen Light Rail, keep finding spelling errors. If you get a chance, would mind to having a look when you've got time? Thanks Djflem (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot for your work Djflem (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for correcting Silver Lake USD 372 on April 12, 2011. Sorry, but I hadn't noticed you edited it. Anyway, thanks for correcting me. Keep up the good work! Kansas212 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for correcting the word "unbeknownst" in page Géa and for all the other corrections in spelling you have done in that page! Please continue with you great job in En Wiki. 187.13.43.10 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Teletubbies
Hi. Do you think this edit is legit, or is it vandalism?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teletubbies&diff=prev&oldid=432936839 Thanks for looking into this. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well-known
Hi, I've had to revert your changes that substituted "well known" for "well-known" in two articles on my watchlist. This website explains the usage fairly well, see rule #5. If you could go back and revert the changes you made that weren't warranted, that'd be great. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:HYPHEN is itself inconsistent, per the example "Among the most well-known members"; according to its own rule, "well" is modified by "most" and should not be hyphenated. Sasata (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "avoid constructions like these" clearly refers to the improper usage of subset terms, so bringing it up here is a straw man argument. How can one follow a guideline that applies its own rules so inconsistently? More examples:
 * from Hyphen: "which is well-known and easy to enter" should not be hyphenated according to the rules of WP:HYPHEN
 * from WP:HYPHEN: "An exception is made for abbreviations that are as well-known as or better known than their full names" again, should not be hyphenated per its own rules. Sasata (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My interest is in getting it right, not wikilawyering, so I have requested a source for this usage at the talk page. Sasata (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you
You've done a lot of proofreading on my articles, something Im lousy at.. thanks!Thelmadatter (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there
I noticed your edit to Wingfoot Express, which altered an insignificant hyphen somewhere down the page, but completed failed to spot the obvious, and obviously incorrect "suffered a heard attacked" in the very first sentence. That was staggeringly incompetent, and gives me the impression that you're not even bothering to read the articles, or indeed read the start and end of the sentences that you're correcting. The mistake above, with citation headlines, was particularly bad. Your kind of relentless but sloppy work is likely to do more damage to Wikipedia than the spellings you have spent every day of your life for the last six years correcting, so I would love it if you stopped. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

..."but *completed* failed to spot the the *obvious*, and *obviously*"... - Redundant little kettle aren't we.

Autoandragogist (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
It's a dirty job but some one has to do it. There are new "seperate" and "recieve" misspellings daily.

My other pet peeves are any word starting with "dissap", the words "similiar", "similair", "simular" - to name but a few.

This is me: http://hambrief.tv/episodes/28 http://hambrief.tv/episodes/33

And today I am 67 years old.

EoGuy (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On making a relevant and erudite edit.
I recently added a section to the disscussion page |Male reproductive system | Anatomy | Prostate. If your searching for an object of attention provides fullfillment, try to make sense of my diplomatic yet convincing rhetoric. I'm new and the power to edit is intoxicating. But you need not worry. Simply because you are the first to make comment, you will not become an object of my attention.

Autoandragogist (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat surprising. The full moon was on July 15. Chris the speller   yack  20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!
Chris -

My thanks for catching and correcting the typo in the ip.access article. It's much appreciated!

Cheers,

Mdrozdowski (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another note of thanks for the fixes to the ip.access page. Your works is welcome and appreciated.

Cheers,

Mdrozdowski (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach
I have this article up for peer review. If you have a moment, your eagle eye for intrusive hyphens etc would be very welcome indeed. Tim riley (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Chris the speller   yack  15:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed so! Thank you, sir! Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, as always, Chris! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wendelin Weißheimer
Chris, could you please scan this article for mispelling or any other thing you see fit ? Whenever you feel like it, no problem. Thanks a lot ! Krenakarore (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Chris the speller   yack  02:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a billion......:) ! Krenakarore (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN
If you wikify "WP:HYPHEN" in your edit summaries, then other editors will be able to navigate to the guideline more conveniently.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Chris the speller   yack  01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that you can even specify the sub-subsection number and the point number to make it even easier. Some of my examples are here.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try anything once, but soon there won't be room left to show all the actual changes; it'll all be hows and whys, and no whats. Cheers! Chris the speller   yack  02:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi just want to say thanks for the correct spelling in the Greek - Islamic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arosby (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Need

 * The Russian Concubine by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Chris the speller   yack  15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

mHz and MHz
Recently, you made some good changes to Sequent Computer Systems‎, only you didn't go far enough. You changed mhz to mHz which is a step in the proper direction. However, with mixed case, it changes the meaning of m from being ambiguous to explicitly meaning milli-. While millihertz might be used in some types of electronics (though not many), in computers it should always (without any exception I can think of) be megahertz (MHz).

Thank you very much for your extensive body of excellent work cleaning up articles! I see your contributions just about every day and thoroughly appreciate them! —EncMstr (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Eagle eye
Thank you for your amendment to my prose in the Royal Opera, London article. I have also been working on Baldassare Galuppi, and if you cared to give that the once-over it would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Just slight punctuation, nothing much. Chris the speller   yack  20:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem! I meant your amendment to David Webster (opera manager) - but if you have time to look at the Royal Opera article too, that would be splendid. Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do when I get a chance. Chris the speller   yack  20:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Just removed a couple of hyphens. Nice article. Chris the speller   yack  23:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am in your debt. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A neologism for you
I saw you had a couple on you userpage, and thought you might like diggered (adj), a road rendered almost impassable by roadworks, a word coined by one of my kids on observing a road filled with JCBs...'Look dad, the road is all diggered up'. Perfect word, imoTheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Chris,

thank you for your improvements. I intend to continue the page and will appreciate if you go over it one in while. Best,

Khnassmacher (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Theory TK of Visual Proportions
Chris the speller, I would like you to read the new version of The Theory TK of Visual Proportions. Thanks --EspaisNT (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Theory TK of Visual Proportions
Dear Chris the speller, I do not dominate the language. I will try to look for help in the University in a few days. Cordial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.78.228 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply
GoingBatty (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

GoingBatty (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect category for Michigan State Youth Soccer Association
Hi,

Thanks for nominating Michigan State Youth Soccer Association for speedy deletion. However, please ensure you read the article thoroughly, as this was an attack page (WP:CSD). This was clear, as the opening line was Michigan is the state, home of the Russian National soccer sensation and most selfish player (name removed). The problem is that whilst the Attack page articles are dealt with quickly, non-notable articles tend to hang around longer. In this instance, the article was online for several hours instead of just minutes.

If you are unsure of how to nominate for speedy deletion of attack pages, then have a read of WP:CSD. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Stephen! Coming... 11:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt that many people's lives were ruined during those several hours, as the page probably had no links to it. The article is gone, and I am not going to spend my day boning up on all the fine points of speedy deletion. I have a lot of ground to cover, and I don't promise to read any article thoroughly. I got the gist of it, and started the deletion ball rolling. If this is not speedy enough for you, why not go on Village Pump and complain that all those zillions of admins took hours to find this article that was tagged with a db-group? Maybe it's because they are busy interrupting productive editors to complain that they are not being productive enough. Be careful when pointing out what appear to be errors of omission; you put yourself in the company of folks like the one who posted the "Hi there" section earlier on my talk page. Chris the speller   yack  13:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but I would say that you worry me by saying that you don't thoroughly read articles before tagging for deletion. A lot of my time is spent turning down articles for speedy deletion, because people don't fully understand what constitues a candidate for speedy deletion.
 * I'm not saying that you are included in that list of editors who nominate badly all the time, as I think this might be the first time I've come across one of your nominations. It may well be that you are correct 99.999% of the time.  However, the impression you give by getting "the gist of it" before nominating for deletion is worrying.
 * So what I said before still stands, but now for a slightly different reason - please read the article thoroughly before nominating it for deletion.
 * As an aside, are you familiar with the tag?  It's a handy note to place on someone's talk page to let them know about your reply. Stephen! Coming... 14:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have more important things to do. I have tagged lots of articles for speedy, and they have all been deleted, with no complaints, until now. The last time I read WP:CSD it didn't explain that some tags should be preferred because they are speedier; maybe you should improve that policy page to be more informative, since reading it apparently does not sufficiently arm an editor to properly add speedy tags. I used db-club because it seemed to generally apply to the whole article, and I could not tell whether the negative line referred to a real, living and identifiable person. I do not know the writer's intent, and whether what he or she wrote was "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person". I also misunderstood the reason for speedy tags; I thought they were to get the attention of admins, who would exercise awesome judgment and then delete or allow the article. Now it turns out that the awesome judgment needs to be exercised before adding the speedy tag. Since I, as a non-admin, seem to lack such judgment, it appears that I'll have to leave speedy deletions to the experts. And I know about the talkback tag. Chris the speller   yack  14:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Motive can be assertained through reading the content to get the context of the article, to see whether or not any ulterior motive was intended. I'll have a look at the policy page and see if it needs to be clearer about the correct tagging and the speed at which things are deleted.  Attack pages are dealt with very swiftly, as such an article left undeleted can be deemed libellous.
 * Yes, admins do check to see if an article is ok/not ok before passing judgement and deleting/saving it. However, the person nominating the article should also be clear on it before nominating in the first place.  Think of it from the perspective of a new editor.  They have created an article that they believe should exist, puts a credible assertion of notability on the article, but not put a reference on it.  Then someone comes along and nominates it for speedy deletion.
 * Potentially, the editor could get demoralised and leave WP before they see an admin come along and remove the CSD tag. You then end up with an article with very little content that could potentially have become a featured article.  If I recall correctly, Military brats was one such article that was nominated for speedy and still became a featured article.
 * I have no problem with you continuing to nominate articles for deletion, just read them through thoroughly before nominating them. If it means you nominate half as many as before, then so be it.  No one will mind if your nomination rate goes down. Stephen! Coming... 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But I didn't nominate Military brats for speedy. I nominated Michigan State Youth Soccer Association, which was about a club and did not indicate indicate why its subject was important or significant. It clearly qualified for A7 nomination, but I didn't think that it qualified for G10, because it didn't just "disparage ... and serve no other purpose". The intent seemed mostly to document a nn club. It's a little hard for me to keep defending my action, as the article HAS BEEN DELETED AND I CAN NO LONGER SEE IT. And I don't much care for your tone in the statement "No one will mind if your nomination rate goes down."; some people think that my contributions to WP are valuable. At some point I will have to discontinue this conversation, as it is wasting a lot of my time, and you don't seem to mind offending me repeatedly. Chris the speller   yack  15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies if my tone is coming across as offensive; I am trying to put forward the "case for thorough review" in a matter-of-fact tone. If it is coming across as anything else, then it is unintentional.  I only mentioned the military brats article as an example of an article that was nominated speedy that became a featured article.  I know you can't see the article we were discussing in the first place, which was why I copied some of the text (removing names), to illustrate why it was an attack page.
 * I'll leave you in peace to carry on your edits. All I ask is that if you do carry on with your speedy deletion nominations (and I do hope that you do continue), is that you review the article thoroughly to ensure that it is nominated with the correct category.
 * In the meantime, I will re-review what I have written above to work out why I came across as offensive; as I said before, that was not my intent. Stephen! Coming... 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I see what I did now - my statement "No one will mind if your nomination rate goes down" was meant to to mean that you don't need to worry about quantity of edits, people will be just as happy with your work if you slow down and be of higher quality; no one is checking that you get so many hundred edits out in one go. I realise that there was an alternative interpretation of "no one cares; just stop editing". I can assure you that the nastier second meaning was NOT what I meant, and I apologise for making it sound like that. Stephen! Coming... 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're OK. Chris the speller   yack  20:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification of a thread on the Administrators noticeboard
Hi. It worried me that you thought I was being rude and offensive in our earlier thread, so I have asked for my actions to be reviewed here. I have made it clear on the noticeboard that I am after my actions to be reviewed, not yours. Please feel free to go to the administrator's noticeboard and make your thoughts known as well. Stephen! Coming... 16:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sort of related to the above, why did you use the edit summary "Typo fixing using AWB (7852)" when tagging the article? - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I pulled up the article using AWB to fix misspellings and bad punctuation. Before adding the speedy tag, it would have been better if I had switched to a normal browser and put in a better edit summary. Worse than that was letting AWB mark it as a minor edit. I'll do better. Chris the speller   yack  17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!
Chris,

Thanks for correcting the typo errors in the article Classical Theory of Growth and Stagnation. It is much appreciated!

Cheers,

Namratakacholia (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Chris the speller   yack  00:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too
Hi,dear Chris,Thank you very mush for helping and correcting contents of article Haider Qureshi.God bless you.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)~
 * Sorry should be much.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

re Lesnoye Sanatorium
You're right, it's "well-appointed", thanks for fixing that. Herostratus (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you buddy, it is always great to hear from a great friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris
Thanks for correcting the Tube Bar Album listing about "breach" of contract, never realized it was using the wrong "Breech". Nice to have a contributer like you.

Tyros1972 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Birth & death dates, Carl Ravazza
Chris, I don't understand why you've amended this. I had (21 July 1910 - 28 July 1968); you've edited it to (July 21, 1910 - July 28, 1968), but my readings of MOS articles only add to my confusion. I went ahead with that format because my reading of MOS for dates suggested my format was acceptable: MOSNUM The example in the introductory paragraph at MOSNUM gives the example of "Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)", even though the rest of that section (confusingly) reverts to the other format. I think "my" format is more elegant and more in keeping with current usage, but that may be beside the point in Wikipedia terms.

See, for example, the more major articles Winston Churchill, dates shown as (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) or Henry James, (15 April 1843 – 28 February 1916).

I have a horrible feeling I may be missing something. Certainly, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, and to be guided by your advice.

Lyn50 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, looking further, there seems to be a lack of consistency across Wikipedia: Fyodor Dostoyevsky November 11, 1821 – February 9, 1881. Lyn50 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For anyone else who reads this, I did miss something: the answer lies here: WP:STRONGNAT. Thanks Chris. Lyn50 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting in ship articles
Hi Chris, just thought you'd like to know that we are discussing some of your recent edits to ship articles at WP:SHIPS, here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make any further such edits until the discussion has concluded. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

°C formatting
Re Internal combustion engine cooling and per MOS:NUM, degrees (taken broadly) aren't spaced as per most units of measurement, i.e.  rather than. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Three hares
Chris the speller, do you have a script or bot that will rework the citations into one format. I personally have come around to "17 November 2011", but this article is inconsistent, and randomly goes twixt formats. This was largely my fault, but I'm a wiki-work-in-progress. Any help would be appreciated. Thanx. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Sorry, but you are teaching a very old dog new tricks.  As Red Green and the Possum Lodge and says: "I am a man. I can change.  If I have to. — I guess." I don't have a skins set up of which I am aware.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium
Your input on this article would be much appreciated. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of input did you have in mind? My opinion of the comma that should follow the 10th word, superfluous hyphens in "cup-of-tea" and things of that sort? Otium might become tedium, but I'll do it. Chris the speller   yack  23:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, comments would be appreciated like above - only if you have the time. Spelling, grammer and possible ways of improvements that might help in improving the article to a possible Good Article status. Or if you want to just leave a few comments, I'll improve on those. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave it a once-over; there were just a few spelling and punctuation corrections. The sentence "Brian Vickers, a twentieth-century British literary scholar ..." has centuries both in numerals and spelled out. I would use numerals consistently except at the start of a sentence, but you may prefer to spell them all out. Good luck! Chris the speller   yack  01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot. I appreciate it. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving


Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Weehawken Public Library
Would you mind when you have time to give Weehawken Public Library a look? Made it a bit complicated w/ refs, and did lot's of re-writing to get it up, but can't see it anymore....Help always appreciated. Thnks, Djflem (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Just a little tweaking. It's in pretty good shape. Chris the speller   yack  15:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotes and references
Hi, regarding this edit, is it possible to quarantine quotes and references from the formatting changes/improvements? Note my partial revert here. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have made this edit to prevent any automated process from repeating the offense.
 * Thank you for the civility. Some folks fly off the handle.
 * I apologize for missing the quotation marks that were in the vicinity of my changes. I didn't think I was editing too carelessly or too fast, but this didn't turn out to be my shining moment.
 * To my credit, I did notice the quotation "An interesting introduction was the fitting of Holden's 1.9litre [sic] "Starfire" ..." and avoided messing with it. The "[sic]" probably helped.
 * Please reconsider the reversion of the en dashes in date ranges, even within titles and other quoted text. WP:MOSQUOTE allows typographical changes such as "Styling of dashes and hyphens".
 * I hope you contact me again if there is an occasion for either of us to learn something or improve our contributions. Chris the speller   yack  15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries and no need to apologise, it was an insignificant mistake. I wasn't aware of the WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines regarding the correction of dashes and other trivialities—I will keep this in mind in the future.


 * P.S. thanks for fixing the hyphen issues like you have done here and on the other thousands of articles where similar changes have been performed. This saves me a lot of time! Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

&deg;C
Great job, thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm still chugging away at it; there are quite a few left. Chris the speller   yack  21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe. 120.18.110.227 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note of thanks for all the good tweaks you have made to my edits! Each time I see your name on my watchlist, you've made something better! Jokestress (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm thinking of changing my user name to Chris the tweaker. It's nice to be appreciated. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

McCaffrey dates
Thanks for dealing with Anne McCaffrey's dates. --Mirokado (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It seems that not very many editors are staying on top of all the articles that mention a person after that person has died. Anyone interested in collaborating in this effort, let me know. Chris the speller   yack  14:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of Afrikaans-language poets
Hello Chris the speller, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of Afrikaans-language poets, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please link me to the move discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  05:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your note confuses me. "Category:Afrikaans-language writers" has the hyphen. "List of French-language poets" has the hyphen. "List of English-language poets" has the hyphen. The hyphen in "List of Afrikaans-language poets" indicates that "Afrikaans" modifies "language", not "poets". This isn't just a Wikipedia thing; see this sample book title. There is no controversy; I have requested similar speedy deletions before and always had them acted on, and never had a complaint. I am very familiar with WP:CSD. If the hyphenation of compound modifiers makes you feel uncomfortable, please consider restoring (undeclining) my CSD request and allowing another sysop to handle the request. Chris the speller   yack  06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved. That is the explanation I was looking for. thank you --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  06:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! Chris the speller   yack  06:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After the whole hypen/dash/space horror, I am a little cautious about page moves between the three that don't have accompanying discussions. Sorry. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At least you know that there are hyphens and dashes, and that they are two different things. That's way ahead of thousands of the editors. Happy sysopping! Chris the speller   yack  06:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Astros
Chris please leave changes. I worked on the Astros page two years ago and most the history up to 1990 is my edits. Since then a lot of unnecessary topics like mascots and Enron field have filled the article. Myself and others are trying to clean it up. There were a lot of edits in that article. If there are any spelling error please correct, but please leave the edits. Thanks Mickeyp2814 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.9.101 (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Astros
Chris I do not own the article and if that is what you seem to understand from my post to you I apoligize. My changes were revirted back to what they were and they were major changes. Not just the garmmar edits you made. Sorry for the confussion and thank you for your continued support in making wikipedia articles look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks! I hope your holiday is great. Chris the speller   yack  05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Paragliding etc.
Thanks, Chris. Joefaust (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

re Genghis Khan
OK, I see. There wasn't an explanation for why the "probable year" guidance was removed.

I recognize that probable year is probably rare, and approximate year more common, but it seems that probable year would occur now and then. (Genghis Khan I'm not familiar with and maybe a better example can be found). And they're not the same thing.

Now that I think of it, what's wrong with "probably" -- that is, Genghis Khan (probably 1162 – August 1227) rather than Genghis Khan (1162? – August 1227). After all, the ? is not clear. It's kind of obvious, but not as obvious as the word "probably". The ? could mean "approximately".

At any rate, whether "?" or "probably" is used, or whether another example besides Genghis Khan is used, there ought to be some entry for probable year. As to not matching the WP:DATE material, it is that material that should be corrected, I think: "To indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx., and should be spaced (c. 1291). Use a question mark for this function (1291?) only when there is a single date that (or year) is most probably the correct date (or year)" or something. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. If you think it'd be misused, that's a valid reason for not including it. So if you want to remove it that's OK with me, I won't object. I do think that we ought to have some sort guidance for when there is a probable date, though. And I don't think a single probable date is the same as an approximate date. But I don't feel strongly about it, and I'm not a MOS maven by any stretch. If you want to bring this up at DATE that'd be good, but it's somewhat rare so possibly we don't need a guideline, so your call. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also the case with two possible dates. I've run into this several times, at Blind Domna for instance. We don't have guidance for that so I just put "birth date uncertain", which is possibly OK. Gene Tierney. Irina Kolpakova. We don't need guidance for everything I guess. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"She is wearing a partly-unzipped black leather jumpsuit"
Hi Chris.

Thanks for your valid corrections to Suzi Quatro.

There is one correction which involved removing the hyphen from "partly-unzipped". I looked at WP:HYPHEN and noted that "partly" needs careful treatment:

"A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). A few words ending in -ly function as both adjectives and adverbs (a kindly-looking teacher; a kindly provided facility). Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, since they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective. These need careful treatment: Early flowering plants appeared around 130 million years ago, but Early-flowering plants risk damage from winter frosts; northerly-situated islands."

I believe that the hyphen is correct in "She is wearing a partly-unzipped black leather jumpsuit" and have put it back.

Please would you carefully re-check the other cases in which you have removed a hyphen from "partly" and correct them if necessary.

Peter Loader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But "partly" does not function as both an adjective and an adverb; it is only an adverb (check Macmillan, Merriam-Webster's, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Compact Oxford English Dictionary). It is an antonym of "wholly", and "wholly" is used in the MoS as an example of a standard adverb that does not take a hyphen. I searched the web for "partly-unzipped" and looked through dozens of hits, but none had the hyphen. You have not convinced me that "partly" is in the same class as "early". Any reader who sees "partly" in a sentence right away knows that it is an adverb and that it modifies the word that immediately follows (such as "unzipped"), so the hyphen is unneeded. Unneeded hyphens are distracting instead of helpful. Chris the speller   yack  15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right. "Partly" does not function as both an adjective and an adverb. So, since "partly unzipped" is parenthetical, I have changed the phrase to "She is wearing a (partly unzipped) black leather jumpsuit". Peter Loader (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Happy New Year and happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

High performance
Chris, you do a great job in tidying up spelling, but I'm not sure adding a hyphen to "high performance boiler" is needed. Yes, in theory it could mean a "performance boiler that is elevated", but I seriously don't see anyone reading it that way. Googling "high performance boiler" (or "high performance" anything) shows that by far the most common style is unhyphenated. Cheers! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have convinced me. Sure, there are plenty of bloggers out there who are typing so fast that they don't have time for a hyphen in this case (and many others). But frequent use in an informal setting doesn't mean that it should be the preponderant use in a formal setting, such as an encyclopedia. Several dictionaries show that the hyphen is required (macmillandictionary.com, dictionary.com, motorera.com), and I can't find any authority that says not to use a hyphen. Chris the speller   yack  21:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A clash of symbols
Hi Chris. Is not this construct $undefined 1/2$ a Very ugly replacement for this ½?
 * Mind if I change them back? Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, don't change them back.
 * The MoS WP:ORDINAL, under subsection "Fractions", says: The use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely, for accessibility reasons among others.
 * Cheers! Chris the speller yack 14:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do they provide the Unicode symbol below if it is not to be used? Looks as if I'm up against something bigger than me. I followed the trail to Accessibility but still found no actual reason given — where is the queue for complainants? Eddaido (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Why do they provide the Unicode symbol ..."? Because there are a lot of reasons for Wikimedia to provide all the symbols that might be used in very special cases, or in parts of WP other than articles, such as a Manual of Style page to demonstrate what not to use, as in the excerpt above. There are many, many Unicode symbols, but it's not a good idea to scatter them throughout an an article unless there is a good reason to use them. From Web accessibility: "When text and images are large and/or enlargeable, it is easier for users with poor sight to read and understand the content". The text produced by "$2 1/2$" is larger and easier to read than the text produced by "2½". If you don't care that it's harder to read for people whose eyesight is not as good as yours, you can take it up on WT:MOSNUM. Cheers! Chris the speller   yack  21:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris, where is the suggestion that ½ does not enlarge at the same rate as the surrounding text? I think you propagate a no doubt appealing fallacy with "easier to read" (as in easier ) and I have a lifetime's personal experience. Eddaido (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Wave your credentials around on WT:MOSNUM. When you get an electric bill in the mail that you think is too high, do you argue with the mailman? I am just following the MoS, I am not its author. Chris the speller   yack  01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Before you dive in, you might want to see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 113 and the section just below Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 133. Though it's not very satisfying, it gives some idea of the thinking behind the reason for the deprecation in MoS. Chris the speller   yack  01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 109.
 * Yes, I had a good read of all that. You're no mailman / messenger, you are no more nor less than a proselytizer. Now I see why your reaction was so strong. Eddaido (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One might expect a little gratitude for saving an editor quite a bit of time by finding the relevant discussions, but one might just receive insults instead. Chris the speller   yack  12:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Susan Harrison (British actress)


The article Susan Harrison (British actress) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Vrenator  talk  13:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Be careful when "fixing" the formatting in templates
This edit just made the parameter not work, because the date range does not display as is, but instead is an instruction for a particular bit of information to appear. Could you please check to see if you made any similar edits to SCOTUS articles in that template? Thanks. postdlf (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to post a request for the template to be adapted to tolerate the ndash, but couldn't find the problem when reviewing the diff, so I'll leave it until someone defines exactly where / how the problem manifests itself. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The en dash breaks the display of what justices were on the court at the time of the case.
 * -- with the hyphen:

Court membership

Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices William Cushing · William Paterson Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington Alfred Moore
 * -- with the en dash:

Court membership

Chief Justice Associate Justices

Chris the speller  yack  17:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've now made the request. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 18:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Schwenksville, Penn
Hello, I'm a former WP editor, and am looking for information about the history of Schwenksville, Montgomery Co, PA. The link in the article is dead so I thought I'd contact the person who added the information. If you have a good link or know more about the Schwenk Family, please contact me. Wolfbane AT Pacific.net

Thanks! Marcia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.43.33 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, all I know is what I found when the link was working. Chris the speller   yack  15:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi, I've noticed that there's a lot of "therefor" instead of "therefore". Could it be fixed? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems
Hello, i received a message for User talk:75.161.197.174 saying that i did something to wikipeida. I don't edit wikipedia at all. never have never will. I think this is a mistake, someone may be using my ip address or something? I don't know but I don't edit wikipedia.
 * Don't worry about it. Some IP addresses are assigned dynamically, and someone who did edit Wikipedia apparently had the same IP address assigned at that time, then that IP address happened to get assigned to you. Have a nice day! Chris the speller   yack  17:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheep may safely apostrophise
Yet again I am in your debt for polishing up my punctuation (at Dorothy Hartley this time). More power to your elbow, sir! Tim riley (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not making other editors feel sheepish! Chris the speller   yack  15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.
You popped up on two of my watchlist pages. You made them both better than they were before. Thank you for doing what you do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's always nice to hear that someone appreciates what you do. Chris the speller   yack  02:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle_of_Xuân_Lộc
Thank you for the corrections there. I will try out AWB someday but am still in the feet-wetting stage. Seeing your edits just made me wish I had noticed the errors that were present when i thought I was done. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The missing hyphen led me to the page and got fixed by a rule I had built, the misspelling was picked up by AWB all by itself, and the tense ("has suffered") looked wrong to me and was done by hand before saving. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mid-day
Please note (re a recent "correction") that mid-day is a perfectly acceptable alternative spelling of midday, as attested by the OED spanning a thousand years of usage. My personal view is that the word is clearer with a hyphen, but I'm old-fashioned in my spelling style, so I'm not going to revert your edit or argue about the pros and cons of the hyphen. I applaud your work in correcting genuine errors. Best wishes.  D b f i r s   08:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dámaso Blanco
2B or 3B? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.12.2 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2B or not 2B? — that is the question. Chris the speller   yack  16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Friend Chris: I'm only trying to help. I'm from Venezuela, and I know Dámaso as 3B, the point is that in his wikipedia's page I can read "Second Baseman". Here are the numbers: 3B = 26 games, SS = 13 games, 2B = 6 games.

jimseg99@gmail.com

That's for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.12.2 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Friend Jim: If you see something wrong in Wikipedia, you may make the correction yourself. It is no harder than leaving a message on a user's talk page, and I do not own the Dámaso Blanco article. Why not give it a try? Chris the speller   yack  21:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I may make the correction by myself, but ... time ago I did it and the correction was dropped. Now, I look for someone with more knowledge than me in the subject. Nobody owns wikipedia's articles.

With the statistics at hand, I think the correction is right. I will do it; later ... maybe some Wikipedia's Owner will kill me, hahaha.

Thanks for your time again.


 * You fixed it. Congratulations, you are now a Wikipedia editor. Chris the speller   yack  16:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar. However, I don't find it productive to solicit permission from prior editors before making corrections to articles. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  14:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re en/em dashes
I will change the way I do them in the DOB-DOD parenthetical notations; I have noticed that many bios omit date of birth, etc., after the name; other use a simple hyphen. I have been trying to correct those where possible. McGill1974 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris
I am a terrible speller. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bro
Good work correcting people's mistakes, keep it up. Vjiced (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Havana on the Hudson
I have just floated the article Havana on the Hudson as it has been sitting in a Userpage for sometime and getting stale. Unfortunately, when I first stated to build it about two yrs ago, I was less familiar w/ refs and used lots of wrong formats. Addtionally i'm not a great speller. Don't mean to dump on you, but more politely request that if yoou have some time, think page would be greatly improved w/ any work that you might wish to do on it. Thanks Djflem (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I agree that you're not a great speller; it doesn't mean you're not a good person ;-)   Chris the speller   yack  14:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits are under way in article
I hope you didn't spend too much time in my sandbox. It seems that cleanup has started in the actual article space.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. It seems that the article looked so un-formatted that a few of us jumped on it right away. Normally I would have thought the opposite and most would 10 foot pole it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Cetuximab
"wholly-owned subsidiary" is a compound modifier, but since I don't have a University of Chicago style book to look it up in, I'm not going to press the issue. You also missed a spelling error. --Nbauman (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for your help on the formatation of the Brad Maddox article!--Nakurio (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for improving my page, do you know the singer Ana Paula Valadão? --Renan C. Nunes (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review help
Hi! Thank you so much for correcting some spelling in my article. I am new to Wikipedia, and I m doing this article as a part of my English 103 class in Clemson University. It would be really awesome if you could take a look at the article Clemson Tigers women's tennis. I would really appreciate any feedback or comments you may have. Thank you! Ykoroleva (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Спасибо большое!:) Ykoroleva (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

AWB Caution
AWB can cause a lot of problems. For instance in Classical Anatolia your use of AWB changed the title of a number of images, making them unusable, because they could no longer be linked to the actual files. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Chris. I'm the author of the Takadimi page you fixed a spelling on a few days ago. I'm writing it for an english class and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on it. I'd really appreciate your opinion. Thanks! Rajahsrider (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about new typo rule
Hi Chris! I noticed you recently added a new typo rule for "secondary". Instead of having a new rule, should this be added to the existing "-ary" rule? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like that would work; I see that the "-ary" rule already fixes "primery", so feel free to expand it. It will then also fix "secondry", and there are dozens of those that need help, too. Chris the speller   yack  01:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks Chris the Speller, for checking my new pages (Psychoanalytical ontogeny and phylogeny) for spelling!
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Chris- I am another one of those who keeps you busy. Corporal punishment for spelling mistakes as a boy proved wasted on me - painful but wasted. So thanks. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization
See Talk:Jacobite_Risings. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Nannine seem to stick out there - couldnt work out what it was - thanks for fixing the State Batteries in Western Australia issue! SatuSuro 22:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux
I see I am yet again in your debt for correcting my errors in articles I've been working on. There can be no escaping the conclusion that you are a boon and a blessing to Wikipedia. Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Help me?
Hello Chris the speller,

Thank you for your nice spell checking using Typo fixing in the article Adujivitam.

Could you please correct the grammatical mistakes in the article Adujivitam? If any help regarding factual stuffs is needed, I can provide them.

59.161.191.206 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Chris the speller   yack  14:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Big Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.132.111 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Book:Arkansas Confederate Infantry Units
Chris

I wonder if you would do me the favor of looking in to the Book:Arkansas Confederate Infantry Units. It's a large task, but you have touched a few of these articles before and I would appreciate your input. Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

BRT in NJ
If you have time and feel inclined, any help you might lend to cleaning up Bus rapid transit in New Jersey would be greatly appreciated. Djflem (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave it a hit. You might want to look at the first fragmentary sentence/paragraph in "Proposals and studies". Chris the speller   yack  03:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Belated notification of problem
Hi, I realise that I'm a few months late in informing you, but broke the link to Image:Aldershot, Ash, Shalford, Basingstoke, Guildford & Peasmarsh, Wimbledon RJD 4.jpg by removing one space (the one after Peasmarsh). Filenames must not be checked for spelling, grammar or punctuation. Thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have spared thousands of filenames where the tools I use wanted to "improve" them; looks like one slipped through. I don't make a habit of this. Altogether, I'm happy with my batting average. Cheers! Chris the speller   yack  14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Centuries
Thanks for correcting my 12th-century mistake in Hogsthorpe. It was late at night, but I can't use that as an excuse as I've written "a 12th century whatever" in numerous articles – a trawl back for me I think :) Thanks again Acabashi (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey


Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Voltigeur
Good spot on being/been. I am hoping to put this article up for GA soon, so this was very welcome.  Tigerboy1966  15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and err.. thanks for the other 20 or so articles where you fixed the same careless mistake. I think I must have been hovering between "being placed" and "having been placed" and ended up with a grammatical chimera/chimaera/Chimaera.  Tigerboy1966   17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad; there were about 500 of these; yours were a drop in the bucket. Chris the speller   yack  17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Chris the speller!
Dabbling around with Her Majesty, are we? You might just run your eye over Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant. It's got all these nasty boats' names and things! If you've got nothing better to do, of course! Amandajm (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave it a little touch-up. Chris the speller   yack  15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So sorry you didn't like "undercover", Darling! Thanks for your promptness!
 * Since you love language, you might like to take a look at Margaret Diesendorf, my late Mother-in-Law.
 * Amandajm (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Veni, Vidi, Tweaki. (I came, I saw, I touched up.) Chris the speller   yack  18:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG! I'm being stalked! Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Graham just did a lovely job on my user page ...... is he your relation? Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Graham seems to be from Down Under. Chris the speller   yack  02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

twenty five & 20th century are not typos
Your recent "correction of typos" in the article on Mallerstang was, in fact the substitution of what may be the more common American usage for what I think is the more common (and certainly a valid) usage in UK English: i.e. "twenty five" and "20th Century" without your hyphens. So I have reverted to the version as I originally wrote it. Best wishes John Hamilton (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded on your talk page.
 * Chris, I have responded to your comment on my talk page, on my talk page. Acabashi (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

List of castles in England
Hi, I see you have been at work on the List of castles in England. The alterations you have made in the tables are to text that was provided in abbreviated form in order to keep the tables tidy. It was, obviously, a matter of deliberate policy, and there was a lot of discussion about the page last year, during which nobody ever suggested that it would be better for the style of the text in the table notes to be changed.

Abbreviation was adopted in order to get as much information as possible into a small space. In practice the notes have since been trimmed down anyway, by me, but a similar abbreviated style is in use in other pages where the notes are more extensive. As it stands, the style is now not consistent, as some of the text remains in abbreviated form. The practice of introducing a space in, for instance, "c. 1305" had also been deliberately eschewed, on the grounds that it looks neater as "c.1305" in the tables. If this is considered to be precluded by wiki guidelines, I think that is a pity. Paravane (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * A brief scan of the many sections of the talk page does not reveal that there is a different style in effect for this article, nor is there any obvious comment to that effect that shows up in edit mode. How is an editor to know?
 * You know - from a quick glance up and down the tables - because there is a pattern of missing prepositions and definite and indefinite articles in the notes, which you have been changing.
 * Some of the text in the "Notes" column wraps to two lines, while most remain on one line, at least on my browser. This was true before I made changes, it remains so after my changes, and my changes caused very few cases, if any, to wrap to a second line.
 * On mine some wrap to 3, which is still OK currently. Originally there were longer notes, and there might be again in the future, as I or others edit the page.
 * "c.1305" looks quite wrong to me, and probably to many other editors. It does not permit using a narrower table column. I see no benefit to be gained in departing from the MoS.
 * A narrower column is hardly likely in this context. It's a point of view.  I think that having the 'c.' on one side of the column, and '1305' on the other side, with a space in the middle, looks wrong.  Until now there has not been a dissenting voice.
 * The tidiness you speak of comes at the cost of readability; this is not a bargain, in my opinion.
 * Again, a point of view: despite a great many edits, nobody has expressed that opinion until now.
 * Dozens of cases of missing hyphens in "xxth century" used adjectivally brought me to this article. I have pretty good tools to correct this situation in normal English text, but they break down to a considerable degree when lots of prepositions and definite and indefinite articles are scrapped.
 * It might be a good idea to move this discussion to the article's talk page. Chris the speller   yack  17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Responses interspersed. I don't myself think it's worth pursuing further.  As I look through your changes again, they are too minor to argue about.  I see there were inconsistencies before; there still are now, not obviously more or fewer, so there hasn't really been a fundamental change.  I'd like to make the point, though, that, unless a page is obviously neglected, then its current state is not arbitrary but reflects for the most part an implicit consensus by previous editors. Paravane (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's nice to occasionally run across an editor who, though he disagrees with your edits, can refrain from a doing a knee-jerk reversion of your work, and can register his disapproval with civility. Both of us can see that descriptive notes in a table need to be kept to a reasonable length, but still need to somewhat resemble normal English prose. We disagree about exactly where that balance point should be, and that's not surprising. One balance point might work better for a reader who is looking through the list trying to find a certain castle, or one with a certain feature; the other balance point might be preferred by a reader who is just browsing aimlessly, soaking in some of the information. You're right that the difference is not worth spending much more time on, and the article size was increased by much less than 1/2 of 1 percent. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  01:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For trawling through my 11,000 odd carefully chosen words about the Leyland Titan (front engined double decker) and sorting out not only the spelling but the punctuation. Stephen Allcroft (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Stephen Allcroft

long-time
As you seem to be into hyphens recently, I've seen "long-time" in use, is the hyphen approriate for that one? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would use "longtime", as many dictionaries prefer, but Oxford likes the hyphen, as do Macmillan and Cambridge . The hyphen may be less popular in the US in this case, but it's OK with the hyphen or as one word. Chris the speller   yack  16:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your travel box
As you have borrowed, I am borrowing from you. I hope that's alright. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A sterling idea! Chris the speller   yack  02:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A complaint from someone who has failed to read and understand WP:OWN
Chris,

Thank you for your dedication to improving Wikipedia as a source of information. While we appreciate the careful editing and explanations you provide, we request that you cease making edits to our affiliate Company pages: American Income Life Insurance Company, First United American Insurance Company, Liberty National Life Insurance Company, National Income Life Insurance Company, and United American Insurance Company. Each of our Companies are trademarked, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Torchmark Corporation. These pages were written by English-degreed Company employees for adherence to our Company Style Guide and brand consistency, and have been approved by our legal team. If further edit warring occurs, we will block you from editing our Wikipedia pages. Thank you for your understanding and compliance.

Torchmark Corporation Affiliates — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkWriter (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing out all the companies you have a conflict of interest in editing, and for issuing such a clear confession - it makes tagging them a lot easier. Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 RDN1F                 TALK  20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with a Vandal
Greetings. I have noticed that you have often been on pages I pay close attention to. I am looking for advise / help regarding a vandal. On my Brooklin Models page there is a user 75.79.15.35 (talk) who keeps deleting information that I put on. This is mostly information that I have cited and it builds on the article. He just changes (mainly eliminating) stuff I put in without any comment or explanation. Could you take a few minutes and review his and my changes, and give me your opinion? In my view, he is practicing, or close to practicing, vandalism. It is to the point where I simply undo his deletes of my information. How would this person (I.P.) be limited or blocked - if administrators see that as the final outcome? Thanks for your help, now and in the past.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advise. I will look into it more. Take care.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Frostbitten
As the originator of the rule would you like to comment? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens
Strangely, when I wrote that sentence in Surbiton Park, I felt that well-heeled needed a hyphen, but I was not entirely sure what the modern practice was. So I looked it up in the most recent Oxford dictionary I have and found that it gave well heeled and several comparable expressions without hyphens. Obviously people are leaving them out these days. Looking now at several older dictionaries, I find hyphens in all these expressions, which seems more sensible to me. Given that the MoS prescribes hyphens, I am happy to go along with your amendment. LynwoodF (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you bring it up, I see in oxforddictionaries.com that they prefer it open (UK), but hyphenated (US). I think that for now I may stop changing from one to the other, even though WP:HYPHEN says to use a hyphens when "well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it". It makes little sense to say "there were many heeled people at the polo match". But the next editor to question the practice may not be as civil or cooperative as you. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  19:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fussy about grammar, spelling and punctuation, and so I have appreciated the work you have done on articles which I am watching. We have an epidemic of semi-literacy here in the U.K. and I often cringe at things I read. Sometimes, however, they can produce unintended humour. Here a footballer (i.e. soccer player) who is selected to play for England is said to have been capped for England. When I read that someone had been caped for England six times, I had a picture in my mind of him running round the field in a Batman costume. LynwoodF (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the misspellings can be fun as well as bewildering. BTW, when I said I might be done with "well heeled", it turns out I was right (because they were all fixed at that point). It's a pleasure working with you; feel free to contact me at any time, especially if I screw up. Chris the speller   yack  19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. LynwoodF (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On board as
Chris, is this a false positive? It didn't seem correct so I reverted myself. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the sentence "The band temporarily brought Amy Griffin (Raging Teens/Avoid One Thing) onboard as a second guitarist.", "onboard" should be changed to "on board", because it is not an attributive adjective. That is, it does not come before the noun it describes, and does not define any property of Amy Griffin; it is only meant to indicate that Amy was part of the group, being (figuratively) "on board (the band)". The prepositional phrase "on board" is needed in this sentence, not the attributive adjective "onboard". Regardless of a recent claim on the AWB/Typo talk page, the attributive adjective "onboard" must be followed by a noun or combination of attributive adjective(s) and noun.
 * Example: He questioned the accuracy of the onboard clock.
 * Example: A loud buzzing noise was coming from the onboard electrical equipment.
 * Note that "onboard" conveys the meaning that something is "provided or carried on a vehicle or vessel", or is expected to be on the vehicle or vessel. If I carry my laptop computer onto a commercial passenger airplane, I could say that I took the computer on board, but if someone asked if the onboard computer was working, I would know that they were not asking about my laptop. If a pilot says "We can't take off for another hour because the onboard computer was taken to a repair facility", everyone knows that he's not referring to my laptop, even though the onboard computer is no longer on board the aircraft. It has qualities that make it an onboard computer, such as a specific power supply or a certain shape and size to to fit in a rack. In the same way, "onboard food" would refer to food that will be served by flight attendants, not to the sandwich that I brought on board in my carry-on bag. Chris the speller   yack  14:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. I'm feeling a bit slow at grasping this, so your explanation is really helpful. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't feel that you're slow with this; 99% of the editors are lagging behind you. Chris the speller   yack  15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

TypoScan
Chris is TypoScan working for you? It's not returning anything for me and I'm not sure if it's my technical problem or the database of typos has been exhaused. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8267
http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/AutoWikiBrowser5311_rev8267.zip It takes care of the slow functions you reported. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the heads-up. I got it, and I'm putting it to good use. Chris the speller   yack  01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviations
Hi Chris, I noticed your changing approx. to approximate. I'm not aware of any guideline to expand abbreviations, but if there are another is Govt. or govt. to G/government. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In WP:ABBR it says "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper." But any such change of mine that you saw was more likely changing aprox. to approximate (one 'p' in aprox.). I have been fixing some of those, and while I'm at it expanding to the fully spelled-out word for more beautiful text. Chris the speller   yack  02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ah, thanks. I prefer the expanded versions. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just ran across more specific instructions. WP:MOS says "do not use approx. for approximate or approximately, except to reduce the width of an infobox or a table of data, or in a technical passage in which the term occurs many times". WP:ABBR says about 'approx.' "It should only be used in small spaces". These should make you feel better. Chris the speller   yack  05:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Marv Green
Can you please do likewise for Monty Powell? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Half way and half-way
Hi Chris. My attention has been drawn to your addition of a rule to AWB to remove these variants and replace them with the single word "halfway". Although the single word is common in British English, all three variants are used, and the OED puts the hyphenated form before the single word. There may be American style guides that recommend the single word, but this sometimes looks odd in British English. I'm not sure that I've got to the bottom of the usage. As far as I know, the stress goes on the first syllable of the single word, but on "way" when written as two words, with possibly equal stress on the hyphenated form. If you can refer me to any style guides that would clarify my instinct to use two words in some circumstances, I would be happy to have my instinct corrected. Best wishes.  D b f i r s   08:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I searched (using Google) for "hyphen half-way" or "hyphen halfway" and found a number of style guides and grammar blogs that lean very heavily to "halfway", spelled solid. Nothing that favored the hyphenated form. Chicago Manual of Style says "halfway". Oxforddictionaries.com says ""halfway". Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, all the decent dictionaries say "halfway". I assume you are looking at a print copy of OED; how old? The trend, even in British usage, is toward closing up hyphenated prefixes. This is not mentioned in American and British English spelling differences. I recently had a similar complaint about "mid-day" to "midday", and was told that OED had it hyphenated. I went to my library to consult its Compact OED and found out it was not hyphenated. Why, then, should I listen to another editor who claims they see it hyphenated in their dictionary? (Please assume the tone of that question is rhetorical, not defensive or accusatory.) Why is such a supposedly correct and popular hyphenation not found anywhere when I go online to research it? My conclusion so far is that the hyphenated form is obsolete. How is any editor supposed to confidently correct punctuation and spelling when he is going to be stopped by some unavailable standard that can not be checked online and is not available even in a large public library? Chris the speller   yack  13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your dilemma, but the version of the OED that I consulted was the current full OED available on-line but only with a subscription or through a library. I've just looked at my (old, 12-volume) printed version and it has exactly the same entry with "half-way" before "halfway".  My search of British newspapers showed all three forms in current use, so the hyphenated form can hardly be obsolete on this side of the pond.  I support your extensive work in correcting punctuation, but, unfortunately, the English language does not always submit to the simple rules that we would like to impose on it.    D b f i r s   06:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Welsh Championship
Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the page for me! Great help! Shenko316 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA
Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenating fractions
Please don't use an automated tool to make this kind of change. Fractions should only be hyphenated when used as an adjective, and so this change is incorrect. --  tariq abjotu  05:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not what WP:MOSNUM says: "Spelled-out two-word numerals from 21 to 99 are hyphenated (e.g. fifty-six), as are fractions (e.g. seven-eighths)." Chris the speller   yack  11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, AWB is a semi-automated (not automated) tool, and each change is reviewed before saving. Since the changes are in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, you should avoid taking an accusatory tone. Chris the speller   yack
 * Well, I can see how that part of the MOS could be interpreted that way, and presuming that was the intended meaning, it's extremely surprising. I seem to distinctly remember, certainly before bringing the Mosque article up to featured status in April 2006, that our manual of style suggested fractions are not hyphenated unless used as an adjective. But, maybe I'm misremembering or it was changed in the intervening six years. Indeed, the Chicago Manual of Style, from which most of our manual of style is based, suggests to use hyphens for all spelled-out fractions, but I also find it interesting that our Hyphen article (maybe this is what I was thinking of) still says Hyphens are also used in spelled-out fractions as adjectives (but not as nouns), such as two-thirds majority and one-eighth portion. Either way, I'll change it back. --  tariq abjotu  14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, I know how AWB works. --  tariq abjotu  14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We're cool, then. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins of rock and roll
Could you please check the edits you (or your bot) are making at Origins of rock and roll. We are talking about musicians, collectively, hearing other musicians playing collectively - "As musicians from different areas and cultures heard each others' music...." - and in my view the use of "others'" rather than "other's" is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not the only person confused about whether, and where, to put the apostrophe in this case. Here are some places that can help sort it out:
 * englishforums.com
 * answers.yahoo.com
 * limebury.com
 * businesswriting.com
 * grammar.ccc.commnet.edu
 * finaltouchproofreadingandediting.com
 * Some of these forums have examples that use two people, while some have examples that use three or more people; the answer is the same. I haven't found any sites that recognize a difference between usage for two people and usage for three or more people, except for one that mentions that some very strict people insist on "one another's" when more than two people are involved. Note that many of these forums still have doubters even after clearly explaining the reasons for using "each other's". Don't make the mistake of thinking that because there are two or three people in the world who agree with your view, that your view is correct. Chris the speller   yack  17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In case you're not convinced yet, try this simple thought experiment:
 * "There were 5 people in the room, and they all looked at each other."
 * Even though there are more than two people, you wouldn't say "they all looked at each others." You would never use "each others" as a plural form of "each other"; "each other" is always a singular pronoun.
 * "There were 5 people in the room, and they all looked at each other's shoes."
 * "each others' shoes" would be the correct possessive form of the plural "each others", but we have just seen that there is no such thing as a plural form of "each other". Chris the speller   yack  20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that you may be technically correct, and I might be, in common parlance, "wrong". This is not an admission you are likely to get from me very often, so make the most of it.  However, your suggestion looks wrong.  It may be better to change the wording around, to avoid a form of words that is likely to invite continual reversions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling in direct quote
FYI, I just reverted this edit of yours as the spelling in question is in a direct quote, and I believe it's usual practice to leave those untouched. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please view the source:
 * To me, that looks like a word broken at the end of a line while justifying text, not a word that Moorcock meant to contain a hyphen. If you would like to preserve the illusion that Moorcock didn't know how to spell, leave the hyphen in. If you still feel that the hyphen was intentional, you would also be betting that Moorcock was responsible for it, and not just some minion doing the typing or typesetting. Also please see WP:Quotations, which says "An exception are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with "(sic)" to indicate that the error is in the original source". I don't see any service the hyphen can perform for Wikipedia readers in this case. Chris the speller   yack  16:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both good points; I'll put it back the way you had it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)