User talk:Chris the speller/Archive 7

Libbi Bosworth
So yea, it's me. A bit of a recluse, but high time I made an appearance to help out here if you'd like - and to thank you for all you've done. I'm game. Libbi Bosworth SoTwangy (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering about something
is but one of many examples of why I'm anti-AWB. How can the term "summary" be credibly used when comparing that edit summary with the actual edit? As often as I see this sort of thing come across my watchlist, combined with seeing User MAW400 at the top of this page, it offers the impression that you're out to pick low-hanging fruit to artificially jack up your edit count, all the while expecting folks like me to make meaningful contributions to content so that you'll have cannon fodder for such activity. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if not for the fact that time and time again, those who do this sort of thing leave the 27 or 30 other things wrong with the page to other editors to figure out and fix. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Before reading all of this post, it might be good for you to read WP:VOLUNTEER, which sets out the conditions under which Wikipedia editors offer their efforts and knowledge. The most pertinent parts are: "You can always stop working on one group of articles, take up working on another for a while, then resume the previous one, with no expectations from others" and "There is no minimum or maximum anyone can contribute". Especially notice "with no expectations from others"; that is how I operate, and you were wrong to assume that I expect something from you or any other editor. If I leave part of an article uncorrected, then I expect one of two things: it will never be corrected, or an editor will eventually correct it (you, me or another editor). Note that WP:VOLUNTEER also says "There is no deadline". I can come back at any time and make more corrections, or not come back in your lifetime.


 * I don't understand your being "anti-AWB". It allows me to correct more articles than if I only edited manually, and, by using carefully prepared rules, helps prevent making typos. More articles fixed = better Wikipedia. When reviewing the changes that AWB suggests, its small window often shows only a paragraph or two, so its operator can not be expected to see and evaluate the quality of the entire article. But I often see other errors that are near the changes AWB suggests, and I often fix those, too, and often go on to make extensive repairs, or make a note of the article for later cleanup.


 * Your complaint about the edit summary mystifies me. It shows exactly what was changed, and why. I think that is what a good edit summary should contain. What would you prefer?


 * The template maw400 was added to my talk page 2 November 2010 by Robertgreer. I did not pay him to do that, and did not solicit that action. Do you think I should remove that template? Or change it to MAW40? I just added "User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Edit Count Usefulness" to my user page. Perhaps if you added it to your page it would make you feel better. Chris the speller   yack  17:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The complaints mystify me somewhat too; there's some principle believes in that makes these complaints make sense that you and I just don't hold.
 * But I believe I get the question about the edit summary: This edit summary is longer&mdash;much longer&mdash;than the text of the edit.  One doesn't summarize a statement with an even longer statement.  But he misunderstands, because an edit summary is not a summary of the text of the edit, but of the effect of or reason for the edit.  In this case, the summary is shorter than the MOS text that explains the edit and the whole essay one could write on what difference it makes if the hyphen is there or not.
 * But he isn't suggesting the edit summary should have been shorter; he's suggesting that the edit text should have been longer. The theme of the complaint is that people should not make easy, trivial edits; they should work harder and have a larger impact.  And I would venture to guess he holds style issues to be less important to the quality of Wikipedia than you and I do, so the hours you spend fixing hyphens and what-not in thousands of articles don't count for much.
 * Finally, the fact that he considers an edit count based on wikignome work to be artificially high tells me he thinks editors are getting some kind of benefit from contributing to Wikipedia (bragging rights, maybe?), which they don't deserve if they aren't truly contributing. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB
Hi. Not sure what the point of this (and similar edits) are. This date-range is used in the source in the reference. And it also fails AWB rules of use #4. I'm sure there's more important fixes needed elsewhere. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 10:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the MoS, "in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions ... Styling of dashes and hyphens". And AWB rules of use #4 proscribes "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page". Changing a hyphen to an en dash does have a noticeable effect on the rendered page. Please do not reverse edits that others make to bring articles into conformity with Wikipedia's conventions. Chris the speller   yack  03:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And if you continue to read further on rule 4 - " If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits". And take a look at rule 3 too. I have no issue on getting you blocked if you continue to make pointless automated edits with AWB that add little or no value, as I have done with other editors. Merry Christmas.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Re rule 4, I am not in doubt, and other editors do not object to my edits. You are one person whose views on this are out of line with the advice given in the MoS. You are complaining about three edits to stub articles. The time already wasted wasted on your complaints and my responses is out of proportion to the significance of the three stubs. I was running AWB with a set of about 450 rules on a list of new(ish) articles, making dozens of very substantial fixes to a large number of them. Three stubs popped up with hyphens in date ranges, and I changed them to en dashes, as they were already right there in front of me. I wasn't making thousands of inconsequential edits. On a fourth article where the only change I made was from a hyphen to an en dash, another editor thanked me. Threatening to have an editor blocked for fixing articles in accordance with the MoS does not seem to be a productive activity. Please let me spend my time on Wikipedia improving articles instead of explaining my actions to someone who disagrees with the MoS. Chris the speller   yack  14:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

3 dots (ellipsis) in legal citations
ChrisTS: In legal citations using Bluebook style, I think ellipsis is indicated not by three dots close up (...), but rather by three dots with spaces between them. Please correct me on this if I am incorrect. Perhaps the BB has been changed since the 1950s and 1960s on this. But if the BB rule is still the same. . . then you need to insert non breaking spaces  to keep the ... all together. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The MoS at MOS:ELLIPSIS says that three unspaced periods are recommended. And MOS:QUOTE, under the heading "Typographic conformity", says "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions ...", so Bluebook style seems not to apply. Chris the speller   yack  21:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Chris, there was a WP discussion about legal format once and the conclusion was, first, In the United States use Bluebook format, normally. This is stated in the MOS:Legal (Manual of Style/Legal); second, it was concluded that for legal articles previously written in Bluebook style, that style should be preserved by subsequent editors of that article.
 * You are referring to a general MOS, not the MOS for legal articles. I do not remember how long ago this discussion occurred, but perhaps others -- such as Notecardforfree or bd2412 -- remember. The Indigo book is suggested by some in lieu of the Bluebook, but they are the same for most purposes, except that Indigo is free.
 * Cheers. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither MOS:LEGAL nor its talk page (WT:Manual_of_Style/Legal) nor its archived discussions (WT:Manual_of_Style/Legal/Archive_1) mention ellipses, so I don't yet see why Wikipedia's style of ellipses should not apply. What article brought this to your attention? And how are we going to help prevent other editors who are not indoctrinated into Bluebook style from messing with ellipses? Perhaps this needs to be resolved on the MOS:LEGAL talk page. Chris the speller   yack  05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Chris. I think that would be a good idea. Can we transfer this to the Talk page that you mention and request a discussion there? I would just like to find out how properly to use ellipsis in quotations from legal opinions that are contained in WP articles about legal cases, so that I can be informed for the future. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I have moved the discussion to WT:Manual_of_Style/Legal. If any one has something to add, please do so on that page, not here. Chris the speller   yack  17:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC) (Notification per WP:CAN.)

Roman Jakobson
Hi. Your edit changed the French book title L'Enonciation: De la subjectivité dans le langage to read instead L'Enonciation: De la subjectivité dans le language. That is incorrect–you are changing correct French spelling into incorrect French spelling. Please be careful when correcting spelling that the word is actually in English–or, if it is not, that you are following the spelling rules of the language the word belongs to. Thanks, SJK (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Forcade
Hello Chris, thank you for all your many edits to help clean up Wikipedia by correcting tyupos typos in so many articles. I have been trying to curb the rampant over-linking in the subject article, but it tries my patience to attempt to complete the whole article at one sitting. In your recent edits to reduce rampant over-capitalization on the same page, I notice a blurring between capitalization of words and titles.

For example, while a military rank (Lieutenant General) can be written in lower case when talking generally about the rank or un-named persons holding that the rank, a title such as the Captain of Auvillar should not be written as 'captain of Auvillar' unless we are talking about a generic captain. This is a specific appointment that should be capitalized like Speaker of the House. We would not refer to him as 'the speaker of the House'.

There are some others like 'Adjutant to General von Roth' and 'Secretary to the King' which are unique appointments and should not be written in lower case.

'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Use your own judgment of you feel you have a better sense of these. I lean pretty hard toward lower case for "adjutant", which is a generic job title; "to General von Roth" in this case just tells us who his commander is, equivalent to "von Roth's adjutant", and you wouldn't capitalize it in that case. Some folks might want to capitalize "mayor" in "Smithers was elected mayor of Splatterdorf", but I resist that. I don't mess with "Mayor of London", though (I give the British a lot of leeway). I think "captain of Auvillar" is more like the former case. Chris the speller   yack  20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After more thought, "captain of Auvillar" is just like "Lauchert was appointed commander of the 2nd Panzer Division". The job title does not get capitalized just because we know where the person works. We don't uppercase a job title just because the holder has a name; we only uppercase a job title if it is a name, or part of a person's name. MOS:JOBTITLES is pretty clear on this. Chris the speller   yack  22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But Captain of Auvillar might be a name, like the King of France example in MOS. I don't know the subject well enough to know, but if there is a document establishing various offices and assigning them titles, this could be one of those.
 * Nonetheless, I believe the Wikipedia reader is more interested in what the job is than its proper title. In the bylaws of a committee, it may be important that someone is Recording Secretary, but the Wikipedia reader is much more interested in the fact that he is the recording secretary.  A proper title isn't necessarily even descriptive, so unless the reader is familiar with that office, it conveys less information.  And capitalized words are harder to read, too.  So as long as "captain of Auvillar" accurately describes the person or position, I'd go with that.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think you have the right approach. Having every other word capitalized in an article is as annoying as a jackhammer. Chris the speller   yack  15:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That dog can spell!
Hi Chris the speller. I just had to chuckle when I saw your name at the Duluth article. Over the years I have seen your name from time to time and always smile and feel grateful for people like you. My sister Judy could have been a "Judy the speller". When Judy was in the eighth grade she won the county spelling contest. Judy had went to a one-room school and there were only three kids in the eighth grade - I was one of them...Judy started school early because our mom (formerly a teacher) began to teach Judy what I learned each day. That was a very long time ago. Judy is dead now. A little secret: This information, abbreviated of course, is tucked away in a wikipedia article. I learned long ago to not be too specific when discussing this sort of thing as I did in the Moose Lake, Minnesota article. But it's here. One day someone will delete it and I won't be here to put it back in. So it goes. :) Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Always glad to hear from an editor who is helping to fix up WP and who enjoys running into other helpful editors. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  18:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fractions
Can you (at least for the moment) stop making edits like this one please? Instead of readable text, I now get (on Firefox) something that looks, if I use my magnifying glass, as 2 to the first power / 2. I have tried in the past to change the template to get the first number big, and only the actual fraction small, but this doesn't seem to work (or no longer works?). Which means that, at least for me, your change (inadvertently) makes the text less accessible. Fram (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I remember my solution from last year. Please, instead of using $2 1/2$, use 2$1/2$ , so we don't get $2 1/2$ but 2$1/2$. At least for me, the latter is much more readable, making it clear which part is the fraction and which part isn't. Fram (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am simply and faithfully following what the MoS (MOS:FRAC) prescribes for mixed numbers. If some combination of your browser and the template is causing you trouble, it seems to me that you should bring it up at Village Pump and/or on the template's talk page. Viewing my edits as the cause of your problem is not the way to go; asking that I ignore the screaming lack of punctuation in "The two and a half story brick house" is not the way to go; asking that I use the template in a way contrary to its documentation, and creating a space after the integer (and contrary to the "unspaced" recommendation of MOS:FRAC) is not the way to go. The edit to the Old Dutch Parsonage article looks fine on my Firefox browser, on my Internet Explorer browser, and on the Silk browser on my smartphone. I am sorry to hear that a good and very productive editor is having problems with his browser, but what will happen to the thousands of articles after you resolve the browser issue days, weeks, months or years from now? You're suggesting that I then go back and fix them again? I'd rather fix them right the first time. I have been making these changes for years and years. Sorry, but I can't see how stopping for the moment will help you much. Chris the speller   yack  13:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have raised the issue at WP:VPT, can you wait with this specific cleanup job until that discussion has shed some light? It would be a pity if you made many more similar edits, only to have to correct them all again. If indeed I am the only one with this issue (or others see the same but don't consider it an issue), you are of course free to continue making this change. Fram (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
I stumbled onto your user page after seeing the edits you made to Astronomica (thanks, btw), and I have to say, I love your list of "new words". Thanks for copy-editing and keep up the good work!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisations
Hi, is this correct when Lecturer is the university office title. like Reader or Professor? - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not capitalize job titles, per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically". If you were lettering their name and position in gold leaf on the door of their office, you would capitalize, but not in discussing their title in Wikipedia. We don't capitalize "reader" or "professor" either, unless it is part of the name, as in "Professor Cribblethwaite". And I should revisit that article and lowercase "Emeritus Professor" and "Anthropology" as well. The name of a particular course would be capitalized, but not an area of study: "He was late for his Anthropology 101 class", but "He taught anthropology and basket weaving". Chris the speller   yack  16:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't being used generically. "A lecturer" would be generic; "Lecturer in XYZ" is not. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Put another way, many people lecture at universities etc but not all are holders of the post of Lecturer. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The MoS is quite clear that Wikipedia doesn't care how fancy or official the job is; it gets lower case unless it can be considered to have become part of a person's name. Most universities have a number of people in the post of lecturer; this is an inescapable clue that "lecturer" is a common noun. Look at any decent dictionary – Oxford, Collins, Macmillan – and you will find they use lowercase. Discussing this with me will not change the MoS, and I will continue to follow the MoS. If you wish to open a discussion on the talk page of the MoS, feel free, but I think you will find that your time spent on Wikipedia will bring you more satisfaction if you find things that are clearly wrong and fix them. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read the MOS before replying above. It is gibberish to me and I don't usually bother getting involved with the obsessives that inhabit its talk pages for fear that I will lose my sanity. It doesn't alter the fact that MOS is a guideline, not a policy. I am reverting you because, for example, "reader in XYZ" is also gibberish but "Reader in XYZ" need not be. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's bad enough to capitalize job titles, for no good reason, and in a clear case of thumbing your nose at me and at the standards that have been set by consensus of the editors of Wikipedia. But on top of that, you put hyphens in date ranges where I properly used en dashes, thus moving the article farther from what other editors and readers of Wikipedia desire and expect. Since you are apparently not capable of being reasoned with, please just go on trashing Wikipedia articles and stay off my talk page, as it only takes me away from correcting Wikipedia articles. Chris the speller   yack  19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please edit "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom)"
Hello, I need your help... I use wikipedia often (usually the german version), but I never edited anything, now I would have liked to, but I do not get to it. I am german, so english is not my native language, thats why I am unable to do the changes myself.... in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom)" is a mistake. There is a Link to the town, where birdwood barracks have been located, but its linking a wrong town. The link goes to Bunde, but birdwood barracks have been close to Bünde... the correct transliteration would be Buende. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCnde As mentioned above, I would have edited this mistake, but I do not get to the right link. So I had a look to the history of that Page, and found out, that you did... thats why I ask you to do that change. I hope, this is an "allowed" way to contact you, its not meant as an offence of course. If you need further Informations to improve Wikipedia, feel free to contact me by mail (alfatour.owl@gmail.com), I live very close to Bünde... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.153.120.225 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I made the change to Bünde; the external link in the article to Birdwell Barracks matches the description in the Bünde article. Chris the speller   yack  22:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.153.120.225 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Page eeview
Hi, I recently added a page related to one you just edited (Lesley Stahl). I'm not good with Wiki, you clearly are. It's for Matt Stahl and needs another user to review in order to become Official. Would you mind taking a look? Forrest Von (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Chris the speller   yack  16:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, can you check this article for any correction
Hi Chris I have added a page in wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartOwner), can you take a look at it for any corrections. Your help will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draknight (talk • contribs)
 * ✅. Chris the speller   yack  17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to myself
Just are reminder to stay off the talk pages of editors who should know better but still disregard WP:MOS, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN. No good will come of it. It will not help your mental well-being, and will not help the readers of Wikipedia; your time will be better spent adding to and fixing up Wikipedia articles. Chris the speller  yack  16:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * → Chris the speller   yack

to
 * → Chris the speller   yack

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I took care of that. There is nothing I hate more than having people walk past me snickering and saying "Deprecated!" under their breath. Chris the speller   yack  05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! However, I didn't take into account that when I used, instead of displaying  , it displayed a regular space, so, when you copied the markup showing on the screen, in three places, you copied spaces instead of  . The signature displays fine, but it will wrap between words where it didn't before. If you want it not to wrap between words ... well, in the Wiki editor, after the line that says "to", copy from after the right arrow (→) to the end of the paragraph. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow-up tip. All is now well, I hope. Chris the speller   yack  14:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To agree a contract
Hello. Noticed you making changes such as this and this.

Don't think British-English dictionaries would agree with the need for such changes:
 * OxfordDictionaries.com point 2.1: (with object) Reach agreement about (something) afer negotiation;
 * Collins point 3: If people agree on something, or in British English if they agree something, they all decide to accept or do something;
 * OED (can't provide a publicly accessible link) point V.15: trans. To arrange or settle (something requiring the consent of several parties); to come to an agreement on. (annotated as "In modern use chiefly Brit.")

I'll undo those ones. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's apparently a British/American English difference that I was unaware of. Cheers! Chris the speller   yack  14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * But does "agree to" work in British English? If so, MOS:COMMONALITY indicates we should use that.
 * Also, "unnecessary" isn't a valid reason to undo a change. "Makes it worse" is.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps Struway2 could answer at least the question about whether "agree to" works just as well in British English; it looks absolutely broken to American readers. Chris the speller   yack  00:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Agree to" makes it different, and therefore worse. In BritEng, "agreeing" something implies negotiation, discussion, agreement on both/all sides, even if only one party is mentioned explicitly in the sentence; "agreeing to" something carries an implication of here it is, take it or leave it, and we might well use "accept" instead. Merriam-Webster illustrates the difference neatly enough (surprised they only say "chiefly" British, if it looks as broken as you say):
 * Transitive verb 2 (agree + noun): chiefly British: to settle on by common consent; and
 * Intransitive verb 1 (agree to + noun): to accept or concede something (such as the views or wishes of another).
 * Does this help? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * For me, it answers the question. Thanks.  Chris the speller   yack  14:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Gladys Knight & Ron Winan's Chicken & Waffels listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gladys Knight &. Since you had some involvement with the Gladys Knight & Ron Winan's Chicken & Waffels redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ibadibam (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 10:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Trocadero (name origin)
You forked this article way back in 2007, when the core article became a disambiguation page. Now, an IP editor has nominated it for deletion, but left no rationale. I saw it on WP:BADAFD and realized that the contents seem to have been merged back to the disamb page at Trocadero, so this can probably be deleted. No incoming links, etc. I've completed the AFD, located at Articles for deletion/Trocadero (name origin), if you wish to comment. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Edits
Thank you for taking the time and fixing all of my mistakes on the presidential elections for x state articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon698 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help clean them up. And most of the things needing cleanup were not by you. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  04:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Elga Andersen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elga Andersen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elga Andersen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing User name
Is this possible to change my User name? I would like to change it 'Sishaykh' to 'Shafaat'. Could you please help me? -- Shafaat Islam (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A better place to ask this question is at WP:HELPDESK. I am not an administrator. Chris the speller   yack  17:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Shafaat Islam (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AWB
Hi, I notice you use AWB a lot and I am trying to but operating system issues. Think you could fix "backround" to "background" and "aicarft" to "aircraft" automatically as the phrases come up? Full list of Commonly misspelled English words.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I only found 4 of "backround" and none of "aicarft". If you found and fixed several dozen of these, then it would be good to add rules for these at WP:AWB/T, but for just a handful it's more efficient to just hammer them out manually. You can make suggestions on its talk page. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  23:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Would like your opinion on move request
Care to weigh in on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expeditionary_Strike_Group#Requested_move_30_March_2018? Thanks! Holy (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

UK professors
Hi Chris! Thanks for correcting things such as "Senior Research Fellow". One issue though: in the UK "professor" is not a job description but a title of distinction. So, for example, Professor of Classics is correct (rather than professor of classics) as it is a tile rather than an office as per MOS:JOBTITLES. Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think MOS:JOBTITLES supports slicing the bologna that thinly. For example, in the Eleanor Dickey article, "Since 2013, she has been Professor of Classics at the University of Reading in England." it should be changed to lower case because it reads like she is holding down that job. If she retired, would the university not do a job search for another person to fill the job of professor of classics? This is sort of parallel to the handling of military ranks, where "regimental commander" is a job, while "colonel" is a rank/title of a person who might hold the regimental commander job or might do something else; "colonel" is a title of distinction, but is not capitalized. I have, of course, noticed that in the UK there is a lot of la-de-da capitalization going on, but Wikipedia sets its own style. Surely you are not proposing that WP use upper case for British professors of classics but lower case for American professors of classics? Perhaps you should bring this up on the talk page for MOS:JOBTITLES.  Chris the speller   yack  22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Surely you are not proposing that WP use upper case for British professors of classics but lower case for American professors of classics?" That's exactly what I am saying: it is a case of British vs American English. Articles about British academia should use British English and therefore capitalise when professor is a title: the lack of capitalisation and the definition of professor as a job (rather than academic or lecturer) is American English and would therefore be incorrect. The job a university would advertise for would be a lecturer at various ranks; the highest of which would awarded the title Professor of X. On a side note, we don't have Bologna sausage in the UK: it required a google as to why you would be slicing up a city! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you're still "correcting" Professor of X on British English articles. Could you please stop and continue our discussion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As it seems unlikely that I will come to agree with you on this matter, I have started a discussion on the talk page for MOS:JOBTITLES. If a consensus of editors changes the MOS to specify upper case for "Professor of X" in articles about British Academia then I will stop changing them to lower case. Talking about it here will not be productive. Chris the speller   yack  01:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fellow of a professional organisation
Fellow of a professional organisation is not a job, nor it is a job title. I'm wondering why are you changing it to "fellow"? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Because "fellow" is a common noun. Check a good dictionary; collinsdictionary.com is a good one. Chris the speller   yack  13:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. "Fellow of a professional association" is not a common noun. Those elected FRS are Fellow of the Royal Society, not fellow of the Royal Society. (And yes, when used as a common noun, fellow is a common noun, but "Fellow of a professional association" is not a common noun.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (BTW: It's past midnight here - I'm unlikely to read your reply in the next 8 hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC))


 * May I add to this discussion the question why you are changing "Fellow" to "fellow" in the case of those elected FBA? This puzzled me when I saw it the other day. Those elected FBA are Fellow of the British Academy, not fellow of the British Academy. The reason is the same as that succinctly stated  at the generic level above by Pdfpdf. Flosfa (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick search for "elected fellow of the royal society" and "elected fellow of the british academy" and in virtually all cases we find "Fellow", which seems to explain my puzzlement at your changes. In any event, as a matter of proceedings, I would suggest that you first change capitalization on the pages of the relevant societies, and if that is accepted by the Wiki community, move from there to the pages of individuals. The present incongruity between the pages of the societies and the pages of the individuals is undesirable, as is the incongruity among the pages of individuals. It also seems correct to me what Gaia Octavia Agrippa says in the section on professors: "Articles about British academia should use British English," and it does seem to be the case that British English capitalizes "Fellow" in the case of national academies. Flosfa (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It wasn't obvious when you posted that, but the discussion has moved to WT:MOSCAPS. BTW, thanks for suggesting that I boldly change the pages of the societies. I have been thinking about that. Chris the speller   yack  04:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Australian English
Please look at all of the page edit history. Well before you posted on my talk page I self-reverted. Could you please refrain from applying American English grammar rules to pages written in Australian English? There must be hundreds of thousands of pages written in American English that would benefit from your attention without you needing to edit pages written in Australian English. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page. Please stop the hostilities. Chris the speller   yack  13:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled. What hostilities? Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm being hostile. Please see my talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Chris the speller   yack  13:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

..a good barnstar..nice code in 2018

 * Hi, please wait don't remove this article, this man is a famous actor and director in Iran
 * I wait your answer Kurdistantolive (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why you don't answer me, please don't remove this article,  you can help me Kurdistantolive (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to do with any possible deletion of your article. I only capitalized one word. Supplications on my talk page will do you no good. Chris the speller   yack  13:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can help me Kurdistantolive (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Farid Sajadhosseini
Good morning ,now I add 4 references to this article (Persian language)
 * I wait your answer please
 * Best regards Kurdistantolive (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey! I did make quite a lot of typos in the Successors to Ikarus (Hungarian company) article, thank you so much for correcting them. And I'm sorry for leaving so many in it.--MediKron (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to be of help. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  13:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Metairie, Louisiana
Hi there. I'm not sure if you take requests, but could you offer your expertise to a tiny content dispute at Metairie, Louisiana. I think a boxing match is just that, a boxing match. But I may be wrong. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not my area of expertise. A boxing card lists a series of boxing matches that will take place at a single event. I don't know whether it is common parlance to say that a boxing card was 'held' on a certain date, especially in Louisiana. Fire up the article's talk page and get a few editors to work it out. Chris the speller   yack  16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Request
Hello my old friend, it has been a long time. I have a request. I wrote an article which I would like for you to look over and check for any written or orthographic mistakes which I may have made and correct them. The article in question is "Briana's Law". Thank you in advance. Your Wiki-friend, Tony the Marine (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅. Good to hear from you after all this time. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  16:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Chris, it is always good to know that there are good people like you still around. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Bishops
Hi Chris! WP:BISHOP says: "Note that the lower-case in "bishop" does not apply to use of an episcopal title ("Bishop of London") in article text, where the capital "B" is standard in British English and very common in American English." For example, at Jeffery Rowthorn, "Bishop in Charge" is an episcopal title (although a weird one) and at William Thompson (bishop), "Bishop in Iran" is a title not just an observation. Unlike the random capitalisation of bishop that you have corrected, these examples were wrongly de-capitalised (and others too). Hope this helps, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, do you want to go through and correct things or would you like me to? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like you didn't wait for me to answer about "correcting" these cases. While WP:BISHOP pertains primarily to titles of articles, WP:JOBTITLES pertains to the text of articles. By that guideline, "to become the first Bishop of Loughborough" should use lower case for "bishop" because it is modified by "first", similar to the example "the 37th president of the United States". I haven't generally changed "Bishop of Xxxx" to lower case, but Bishop in Iran is going to trip up a lot of editors; I added "As written" template to protect it from future attempts at lowercasing it. As for "Bishop in Charge", it sure looks like a plain job title to me. Even the article Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe has it in lower case (and I didn't change it). There are only two articles that have "Bishop in Charge" in upper case, and they both pertain to Jefferey Rowthorn. I am far from being sold on upper case for that job, but have it your way. While you're in Rowthorn's article, you might want to clean up overcapitalization of "dean", "chaplain" and (probably) "rector". Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  05:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Haint sed hi 'n awile
Wanted to brighten your day with two gems. How do you congratulate someone who has "full-proofed" their work? And recently I saw someone responding to a query about pressure waves in liquids, with their trick for cracking safes without damaging the contents. The idea was that filling the safe with water and then using a small amount of explosive within would simply and literally crack the safe. They described the details of the procedure, beginning with "Get a settling torch ..." It's that Phoenician spelling coming back. Shenme (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep, thems is gems. Thanks, a good start for the day. Chris the speller   yack  13:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Board of Governors capitalization
I saw your recent edits that changed capitalization to a number of terms, most often Board of Governors --> board of governors. My understanding is that "Board of Governors" is short for the full title of the institution, the "Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System." As the title of the organization it would be a proper noun, and is not just being used as a common noun as a ruling body of people who govern the Fed. Using the short title wouldn't seem to lose the proper noun aspect (e.g. Germany is still capitalized, even when not using the full "Federal Republic of Germany"). Everywhere I can find, the US Government refers to the Board of Governors, as do secondary source like NYT & the Washington Post. Why should we use lowercase? MarginalCost (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you read MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think it will become clear. Lots of institutions have boards of governors. There is no more need for capitals in "xxx and yyy regularly audit the board of governors" than in "xxx and yyy regularly audit the university". Chris the speller   yack  22:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Department of Health and Social Care
Hi there, could you point to a WP style convention to explain the change you recently made to Department of Health and Social Care to remove all the capital letter Ds from "Department"? I think most English readers would find that an odd change to make. I'd expect to see "a department" but "the Department". Best wishes. Millstream3 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you read MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think it will become clear. Chris the speller   yack  18:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Millstream3 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

South Dakota gubernatorial election, 2018 (capitalization)

 * Your recent revision to this article removed the capitalization of several instances of "state representative" and "governor" but left other capitalization of the same offices in place. It also left the capitalization of U.S. "Representative" ... "Attorney General" ... "Lieutenant Governor" ... state house "Speaker" pro tempore ... state senate "Minority Leader" ... Sioux Falls "Mayor" ...
 * I personally despise all of this gratuitous capitalization, but my impression was that it was standard Wikipedia practice. Is there a distinction you can explain between the capitalization you removed and the capitalization you left? Would you mind if I removed the remaining capitalization to give the article internal consistency? —216.249.248.176 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The rationale for using lower case for "state representative" and "governor" in these cases is that they are common nouns. Standard Wikipedia practice (spelled out in MOS:JOBTITLES) is to capitalize these only "[w]hen followed by a person's name to form a title", as in "Governor Smith" and "State Representative Williams". I am using AWB to clean these up, and it has about 1,900 rules I created to get the vast majority of these with few false positives. In this article, Kristi Noem should be a lower-case "state representative", but my rules like to check to see if it's followed by a person's name, and it's not simple to do when a reference markup follows the job title. I encourage you to go further. In the case of "U.S. Representative", it seems less like a common noun: only 13% are in lower case if you search WP for "a U.S. Representative". It might be useful to bring this case up for discussion on the talk page for MOS:JOBTITLES. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  17:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I should mention that terms like "Lieutenant Governor of South Dakota" and "Attorney General of South Dakota" are formal titles referring to specific entities, so they get capitalized unless modified or pluralized, as in "He is a former lieutenant governor of South Dakota". Chris the speller   yack  18:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

RPM vs rpm
Hi! Regarding you recent change to Toyota Celica, WP:CARUNITS specifies that we use 'rpm' instead of 'RPM'. Thanks for the many other typos that you have fixed over the years.  Stepho  talk 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't change "rpm" to "RPM"; I changed "rpm's" to "RPMs" because "rpm's" sure didn't look right. I can't say that "rpms" looks much better. Searches of "at higher rpm", "at higher rpms" and "at higher rpm's" showed "rpm" (20), "RPM" (12), "RPMs" (8), "rpms" (3), "RPM's" (2) and "rpm's" (1). This shows that both of us could have done better; after all, "rpm" stands for "revolutions per minute", which is already plural, so the most frequently found ("rpm") is probably also the best. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  13:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have now changed it to 'rpm'.  Stepho  talk 22:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

semi-final or semifinal
I noticed you changing a lot of articles to "semifinal" rather than semi-finals. I know in UK English it is semi-final and in American English it's semifinal. Can you point me to where wikipedia has determined that we will always use semifinal in articles? I think in tennis articles I have tended to use the nationality of the player as the determining factor of British vs American spelling and dates, but I could have missed the MOS entry on semifinal spelling. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the American/British split is as clear as you claim. I had checked several online dictionaries and found "semifinal" in all of them. If you go to dictionary.cambridge.org and select "English (UK)" from its top toolbar, then search "semi-final", it suggests "semifinal". Same thing if you use the drop-down list in the search box on the second line of the menus/toolbars and select "Essential British English". Usually, at least: after doing this several times, it yielded a definition for "semi-final". After several more tries, I can no longer find "semi-final" on that site. There is some kind of bug. On collinsdictionary.com there is only "semifinal". On oxforddictionaries.com, it has "semi-final", but I had searched using onelook.com, and that didn't find oxforddictionaries.com for "semi-final", but did find oxforddictionaries.com for "semifinal". Another bug, apparently? Now that I have dug deeper, oxforddictionaries.com does show "semi-final" if you go to its site and choose "DICTIONARY" from its drop-down list instead of "DICTIONARY (US)". I was only changing articles that had a mix of "quarterfinal" and "quarter-final", to make the spelling consistent, and while I was there also changing "semi-final". I can add a check to avoid articles that have a "use British English" template, but probably many articles lack such a tag. I can also avoid category "British male tennis players" and the like, but there are also other sports. How to get all the articles cleaned up that have both spellings? Chris the speller   yack  14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just dictionary use. I think Manual of Styles of British newspapers tend to use semi-final also. I also checked Collins and found semi-final right here. You'll also note that it says America uses semifinal. The Telegraph uses semi-final. At least some British schools use semi-final. You are correct about Cambridge but I see it's not consistent. If you use it then check out the term quarter-final, which it says is spelled quarter-final in UK and US.


 * I don't think you should be mass changing articles to semifinals/quarterfinals/etc that pertain to things using British English. Since I work mostly with tennis articles, especially those, but someone else may call you on other articles and your revert load may get very high. Both spellings in an article should be changed to the prevalent term for the style of English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have sharpened the tools to exclude articles that specify British, Australian, South African English (or EngvarB or EngvarO) or are in categories for British, Australian, South African players, but what about an article about an American player who gets to the semifinals of the U.S. Open and then to the same level at Wimbledon? Is it then "semi-finals" even though the article has a "Use American English" template? Chris the speller   yack  20:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I must have missed this reply... sorry. If it's an American player bio, we would use semifinal throughout, no matter the event. If it's a British player we would use semi-final throughout, no matter the event. For the event itself we would use the term prevalent at that particular event's location. We want to be consistent throughout an entire article. I'm sure there are always exceptions, heck, what would English be without exceptions. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nikki (given name)


The article Nikki (given name) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Duplicative of article Nikki"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The deletion proposal had to have been made by an editor who did not examine the two pages thoroughly and did not follow their history. Chris the speller   yack  04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy 2019
== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Chris
I hope you have a Happy New Year full of blessings. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:As Told by Ginger
Do you think you can create Category:As Told by Ginger here on Wikipedia, please? --73.6.75.134 (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, anyone can do so, so why not try doing it yourself? If you can't, then I don't know what I'm talking about, so I would be a poor nominee for such a task, don't you think? Chris the speller   yack  04:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User:SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy was blocked for vandalism, but has vowed to never do that again. He just wanted another chance, but if he's still blocked, you might wanna create the category. --2601:2C0:C280:21A0:8C84:59D1:E805:D53F (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about it to dispute the decision that was made back in 2008 in this discussion, so I'm not going to tackle this one. I tend to agree that it is an "unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a TV series". Chris the speller   yack  17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Winegrowing or wine growing
Hi Chris, thank you for your tireless efforts in correcting misspellings. However, "wine growing" is not one of them and, in fact, appears more common than "winegrowing". That said, neither appears wrong (e.g. "wine growing" is supported by Merriam-Webster online) and so I don't think we should prefer one over the other. So I'd be grateful if you could revert your recent changes e.g. at Moselle and Lower Moselle. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have taken this up on the talk page for the Moselle article, which is a better forum. Chris the speller   yack  04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Honourary ?
Hi, I notice that on the page for Vernon Douglas Burrows you changed Honourary Member to Honorary Member. I prefer the original spelling because this article is about a Canadian researcher. According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, "honourary" is an acceptable spelling. Also, if you look at the original source of the information, it says, "He was made a

Honourary Life Member of the Canadian Seed Growers Association in 1986." https://oatnews.org/oatnews_pdfs/oatfame/HofF_DSOI_Burrows.pdf Thank you for correcting the commas though! Kometapen (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read MOS:COMMONALITY, especially the part that says "When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred". "Honorary" is the only acceptable spelling in most varieties of English, and the most common spelling in Canada. Also see WP:SPECIALSTYLE; just because oatnews.org uses a certain spelling, it does not mean Wikipedia has to comply. This article, just like the entire Wikipedia, is not just for oat growers, and not just for Canadians. Chris the speller   yack  19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My change to IBM Blue Gene
As per your comment to me.. It was not my intention to revert the use of the hyphen. However.. your edit to substitute "GB/s" to "Gbit/s" is factually wrong. It's supposed to be "GB/s" as in "Giga byte per second" not your edit "Gbit/s" as in "Giga bit per second". A bit and a byte are not the same thing. The latter is eight times as much. You can read about it in respective article, or in the manual guide you yourself provided for me. -- Henriok (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a discussion to WT:AWB/T so the recently changed AWB rule can be corrected. That discussion describes how this one got past me. Chris the speller   yack  16:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent collaboration! Have a nice weekend! -- Henriok (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Iford listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iford. Since you had some involvement with the Iford redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A simple (one would think) over-capitalization issue
Just wondered if you'd like to weigh in on a discussion on the Port Howard talk page about over-capitalizing military terms. I know this is up your alley. Thanks! Holy (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, in that discussion I added the page you had been looking for. Chris the speller   yack  13:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Account protection
Dear Chris,

Please forgive my direct approach. I noticed your comment about 3/4 days ago on the page, addressed to one Towel180:

"@Towel180: It is not constructive to change section headings to title case. MOS:HEADINGS says "Section headings should follow all of the guidance for article titles ... and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Please restore the headings to sentence case. Chris the speller yack 16:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)"

I am hoping you can me with page protection for this page: Adegboyega Oyetola.

Adegboyega Oyetola is a serving governor in one of the 36 states in Nigeria. As a result of an ongoing tribunal case, there have been countless deliberate attempt to misrepresent the information on the Wikipedia. Such as: claiming that he was in office till 22 March 2019; but this is not true as the governor remains in office through the duration of court proceedings.

Apologies for the long essay, but I thought it would help give an insight to why I thought to reach out to you, requesting for the page to be protected, if possible.

Please let me know if you require further information.

With regards, Collins 207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins207 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator, and therefore not the best person to help you. Please read WP:DISPUTE and follow its suggestions. Also, as you pointed out above, I adhere to the guidelines on sentence case for section headings, and have changed the capitalization on this section of my talk page. Chris the speller   yack  16:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Chris, I will follow up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins207 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

How to suggest on edit on a Locked wikipage?
Hi,

How can I suggest an edit on a wikipage if the edit option is locked to protect vandalism?

Please help.

Thanks. Suheb73 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The best place for asking a question like this is at Helpdesk. Chris the speller   yack  16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Cornwallis Madan
Hi, just saw your minor correction at this article. Appreciate if you have time to polish a bit; I just translated from the swwiki entry, and this tool with its line-by line translation sometimes makes me write funny sentences (and English is not my mother tongue). And I am a bit short in time tonight, but he should not just be there in Swahili, I thought. Kipala (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

✅. Chris the speller   yack  16:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hyphen after "well"
I bow to your expertise, but reading WP:HYPHEN, I'm not sure why [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bletilla&curid=1903970&diff=900696615&oldid=888198802 this edit] is correct, although I don't find WP:HYPHEN entirely clear. In this case "well" does not change the meaning of "drained", so acts just like any other adverb. We wouldn't (apparently) hyphenate "thoroughly drained media", so why hyphenate "well drained media"? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The passage in WP:HYPHEN that applies is "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively". "Attributively" means modifying a noun and constituting part of the same noun phrase, normally preceding the noun. In the edit under discussion, "better to keep them in pots of well-drained media so that", the participle "drained" modifies and precedes the noun "media". If it were phrased as "better to keep them in pots of media that are well drained so that", then a hyphen would not be called for. The phrase in the MoS that says "if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective" only comes into play when the participle follows the noun. And if well is itself modified, even before the noun, the comma would be dropped: "in pots of very well drained media so that". Chris the speller   yack  14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see how the text is being interpreted, but it seems very odd to me to treat something like "thoroughly drained media" differently from "well-drained media" (and then presumably it would be "thoroughly well drained media"?). Still, if that's the consensus, so be it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's because adverbs that end with "ly" are automatically and instantaneously recognized by most readers as modifying the adjective or participle that they precede, while well can be a noun, verb, adjective, adverb or interjection. Compare "I saw a man with a bucket near the well yesterday" with "I saw a man with a bucket near the well drained soil yesterday". You hit a bump when reading the second example, but not when reading "I saw a man with a bucket near the well-drained soil yesterday". Also, no bump when reading "I saw a man with a bucket near the very well drained soil yesterday", because very never immediately precedes a noun, only an adverb or adjective. Chris the speller   yack  16:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. (I used to teach parsing of natural language to undergraduates, so I should have recognized the possibility of a garden path sentence.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Air Force
Hi. At Special:Diff/902290950, you de-capped "Air Force" a couple of times, which looks wrong to me. Though not including the "U.S." prefix (for brevity), it seems clear that they refer specifically to the USAF, not to a generic air force, no? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 17:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The guidance is found at MOS:MILTERMS: "the American army, but the United States Army." Formal names of units are capitalized, but not types of units when they do not appear in a formal name. Chris the speller   yack  18:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that. I believe these are instances of the "formal name", abbreviated. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization – in this article, the instances of "Air Force" do not refer to a "type of unit", but instead specifically to the USAF. This is analogous to using "the President" when referring to a specific president, usually to avoid tedious repetition of the full name. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 18:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading too much into the word type. The example of "the American army" speaks clearly. You can join the navy, or you can join the Royal Navy, even if they are the same thing. Chris the speller   yack  19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of High-speed rail in Switzerland for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article High-speed rail in Switzerland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/High-speed rail in Switzerland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZH8000 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Naval General Service Medal (1847)
Hi Christhespeller, I see you italicized the ships' names in the clasps. Doubt that that is appropriate as we are trying to keep the clasps accurate with respect to spelling of months, ships' names, etc., and the names are not italicized on the actual clasps. Italicizing them would seem to be an anachronism. What do you think? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Better not to mess with the clasp descriptions if I can't see what the clasps actually look like. But I restored the capitalization change in the table headings. Chris the speller   yack  01:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Decapitalizing the table headings makes sense. It was just the clasps that bothered me. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Format
Moin. You changed the format here (St George) - at least I, knowing nothing about formatting, believe that's what happened. What I would like to know is what is the advantage of the change, since I believe it might have been me who added the link, and I'd like to know if it and if so what was wrong, with the possibility of not/otherwise piping links furtheron. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * One change was to use an en dash [–] (not a hyphen [-]) for a range of years, per MOS:DATERANGE. The other change was to use italics for proper names of "Named, specific vessels", per MOS:ITALICS. HMS St George produces  HMS St George, while HMS St George (1785) produces HMS St George (1785). The same effect would be achieved by HMS St George , but using the HMS template also saves space.  Chris the speller   yack  13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thnx, that's helping! --G-41614 (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jurys Inn
Hi, The reason I changed wholly owned to wholly-owned was because it appears with the hyphen in the OED. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia's MoS says specifically "a wholly owned subsidiary". The online dictionaries such as lexicon.com do not use the hyphen, either. And it's just not Wikipedia's style. Cheers. Chris the speller   yack  14:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't know about MoS. In my normal life, I generally tend to stick to English English rather than variations. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"Recently" (unhyphenate)
Hi Chris, was this intended to be unhyphenated. Sun Creator(talk) 16:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, per MOS:HYPHEN, which states "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ...", as readers don't need a hyphen to tie the easily recognizable adverb to the modifier it precedes. Chris the speller   yack  17:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chris. MOS:HYPHEN is nice and clear. And the hyphenate rule applies because recently is an adverb. Regards Sun Creator(talk) 10:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * At some point I want to get a better grasp of the onboard rule. It seems the clever bit is the required punctuation immediately after the subsequent word. I imagine so that it's not an adjective? Although how is a mystery to me. One thing that seems odd is the rule allows "onboard ll", it that for some exception with roman numerals, or perhaps the rule is meant to mean "onboard all"? Anyway for now I'm skipping any occurrence of the rule, but it's a very minor issue because there is only 78 articles that match the current criteria of onboard (an | as | at | ll | for | in | ship | the | that | these |  to | when | with | were) immediately followed by [,\.;:]. Regards  Sun Creator(talk) 10:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

KBR (company) and Bechtel
Hi - Just so you are aware you seem to have introduced some unusual spellings for "Iraq" and "Iraq War" into the above articles. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting my attention. Some of my code ran kind of crazy, and I'll have to tighten it up a little. Chris the speller   yack  17:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Great. Thought so. Happy Christmas! Dormskirk (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And you. I also clobbered BP pretty well. Chris the speller   yack  17:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wholly
Hi, sorry about the error yesterday. I see that Wikipedia specifies a wholly owned subsidiary whereas the Oxford English Dictionary specifies a wholly-owned subsidiary which is normal for me. Again, thanks. Denisarona (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No comment?? Denisarona (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize for following the OED; it's just that WP has a different style. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  14:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Boat Race fractions
Hi Chris. Could you direct me to the MOS instructions that back up your recent edits which change worded and hyphenated fractions to the use of the frac template please? I took a look and couldn't see anything that objected to the original usage that you have been using AWB to change. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. MOS:FRAC says "Mixed numbers are usually given in figures, ... – markup:  )." The main point of the change, however, was to get rid of all the useless hyphens. You would need hyphens in a case such as "Oxford held a three-and-a-half-length lead", but not in "Cambridge won by three and a half lengths". Unless the fraction is in figures, some editors cannot resist an impulse to spray it with hyphens.  Chris the speller   yack  01:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha. Interestingly MOS:FRAC also says Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated: seven-eighths. so I guess it's just you exercising a preference across all these articles.  Not to worry. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, there is a difference between "one-half" and "a half" and "three and a half". The first case is a simple fraction, which is where MOS:FRAC suggests a hyphen. Chris the speller   yack  14:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much respect Chicago Manual of Style gets in the UK, but it has this to say about the matter. So no, it's not just my personal preference. Chris the speller   yack  14:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * MOS doesn't say anything about "simple fractions". But now you're rolling this out regardless, are you going to replace the "quarter" instances too?  And the others, e.g. thirds?  And the infoboxes? Right now you're leaving the articles inconsistent internally in many cases. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I plan to go back and also change "2 and 1/2 lengths", thirds, etc. True, MOS doesn't literally say "simple fractions", but its example of "seven-eighths" is a simple fraction, not a mixed number. No need for the MOS to specify how to hyphenate (or not) a mixed number, as it recommends figures instead. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Leyla Moses-Ones
Please don’t disregard in progress tags in the future. I tried to save updates that I made while unbeknownst to me, you were also editing. So, I lost all my updates due to an edit conflict. The next time you want to edit something with an in progress tag, give the original editor more than a few minutes to finish what they need or want to do so something like this doesn’t happen in the future. Your edits on ways you prefer spelling and punctuation cont have to be done immediately.


 * I have no idea what you are complaining about. I don't see where such an article exists or where either you or I edited such an article. Please provide a link, and please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Chris the speller   yack  04:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

a question
Could you please tell me why my article Houshmand Dehghan has not appear on Google's search yet? I created it 3 days ago. With regards Hesaban (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I find it when I search for it. Sometimes there is a delay in updating the search index. A better place to ask is at WP:HELP. Chris the speller   yack  14:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem with script?
In this edit (25 December 2019), you replaced part of a URL with. Please adjust your script if you have not done so already. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup, the script is only about 99.9% reliable, and the unintended change towards the end of the article slipped past me. Thanks for noticing and informing me. Chris the speller   yack  05:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This one too from 27 December 2019 (I fixed it). Let me know if you need help troubleshooting a regex. I have a moderate level of expertise with them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the script is doing exactly what it's designed to do. I just need to be more vigilant when visually checking its effects. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

semi-final
The hyphenated spelling is acceptable British English per OED, Collins, you may want to revisit the AWB typo change so as not to apply it where an article uses British English as an WP:ENGVAR issue. Nthep (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * By "revisit" you effectively mean "remove", as the typo rules get applied to all articles, regardless of national ties. You say that Collins accepts the hyphen, but collinsdictionary.com does not; perhaps the usage is changing if an older, printed copy of the dictionary accepted it. And I have to take your word for what OED says, as most editors in the US have no access to OED online or even print copies in public libraries. I will remove the typo rule, though that will make fixing "semi final" much more difficult. Chris the speller   yack  13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. collinsdictionary.com does accept the hyphen . Nthep (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right. I checked onelook.com, where "semi-final" does not connect to collins, but "semifinal does", thereby leading me astray. Thanks. Chris the speller   yack  14:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Gallifrey
Hello CtS. Regarding this AFAIK Time Lords go to a (U)niversity. I am just kidding :-) This gave me an excuse to stop by your talk page and thank you for all your work here over the years. I hope you and yours are safe and well. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Mayor vs mayor
Hi Chris. Just curious is there a style guide that sets out what should/shouldn’t be capitalised? As a public office I would have that mayor should be capitalised? Benawu2 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia's Manual of Style covers this at MOS:JOBTITLES. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  00:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the clarity Chris. Cheers Benawu2 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sea-level
Hi, the Oxford English Dictionary is the premier dictionary in the UK. Here is the entry for "sea-level":- sea-level, n. 1. The mean level of the surface of the sea, the mean level between high and low tide.

I am certain that "sea-level" is the correct formulation. "Sea level" may also be correct, but as the existing edit was correct, there was no need for you to change it. Regards Darorcilmir (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's the old OED gotcha. Very few people on the other side of the pond have access to the OED, even in an otherwise well-stocked public library. Now I have to take your word for it. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  03:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Clark Hunt
Hi Chris, I saw your change to Clark Hunt regarding capitalization of "general manager". The page still uses a mix of "general manager" and "General Manager". How should we proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remline (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was using a tool to find "General Manager" miscapitalized in certain situations. I have gone back and done copyediting on the article. You can do the same on any article. Happy editing!  Chris the speller   yack  16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammar fixes needed
Hey there! If you have time, could you possibly look at the OpenStreetMap Wiki? (wiki.openstreetmap.org) There are a lot of spelling and grammar errors there, as well as some missing pages.

Thanks, TheAdventurer64 Theadventurer64 (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

'erbicide
Hi Chris - there is a slow-motion edit war going on at Agent Orange‎ between "a herbicide" and "an herbicide". As a Brit, I would say "a herbicide", because I pronounce the h, but appreciate that some Americans don't - especially when referring to " 'erb " as in Cannabis (drug). Although primarily used by the US military, it was developed by a joint US/UK team, which complicates WP:ENGVAR. I'm unaware that WP has a specific guideline in these circumstances - is there one? or do we just let a fairly harmless edit war resolve itself? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything to add to the discussion, so I'll remain neutral. Chris the speller   yack  14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Open a discussion on the article's talk page. That is the first step to resolving edit disputes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Şekerbank
Um, did you mean to blank the entire article here? Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know what happened there, and I've never seen anything like that before. I previewed the changes, they looked good, and I saved it. Thanks for letting me know. Chris the speller   yack  13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)