User talk:ColinFine/Archive 1

Bassoon, transposing, and Boehm
Thanks for the bassoon info on the transposing instrument page. According the the boehm system article, neither bassoon nor oboe uses the Boehm fingering system. The paragraph was meant to only address Boehm system instruments; I was trying to focus the point and limit the discussion of exceptions. I could certainly be off-base, though - while I play single reeds and flute, I know (almost) nothing about double reeds. Special-T 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that Bassoon doesn't use the Boehm system, but like almost all woodwind instruments (and like the unkeyed recorders, shawms etc that they are derived from) it has a basic scale that is formed by uncovering the holes one by one. Boehm, Heckel and the rest didn't change this pattern.
 * I was wondering whether to do something about the extremely odd wording on boehm system: "The bassoon (and contra-bassoon) are unique members of the woodwind family in that they are both fingered with Heckel-system keywork, a descendant of the original Baroque fingering system, as opposed to the otherwise ubiquitous Boehm system."
 * First, it doesn't mention oboes and cor anglais - I'm not sure whether their keywork is referred to as Boehm or not, but if so it should say so, and if not, the bassoon isn't unique.
 * Secondly, Boehm is just as much a descendant of the original Baroque fingering system as Heckel. ColinFine 13:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, your 'Why transpose at all' section really duplicates the 'Reasons for transposing' section further down. Either remove one of them, or merge them. ColinFine 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - this is my first stab at editing.

I am far out of my depth in discussions of double-reed instruments, but I understand your point about the bassoon's "home" scale being F instead of C. I also know very little about the historical evolution of instruments, so I have no insight into any Boehm/Heckel discussions, but logically and gramatically I see your point about the Boehm article wording.

I realize that 'Why transpose at all' duplicates other sections - I plan to re-organize the article a little more. I think that addressing different aspects of transposing instruments in a clearer order would make the article easier to understand. I have explained transposing instruments to students (and other musicians...) for years, but explaining it verbally is quite different from explaining it clearly in writing! It can be a tough subject to understand. Thanks again for your help. Special-T 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick translation
I've marked Surender Bhutani for speedy deletion since it is a non-notable person in Polish language. Much appreciated. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh Fringe
fyi - as nobody else entered into a discussion, I have now dutifully changed the section on venues. BAK 06:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Tbilisi
Hi there. I saw you have restored the paragraph on Talk:Tbilisi. I had removed it before because it looked very much like vandalism. It was written by an established POV-pusher User:ArmenianNY who posted his comment under the name of another Wikipedian, namely User:Ellsworth. Please check the page's history. Thanks, Kober 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jig
The sentence claimed something without any back-up whatsoever. WP could be dotted with such statements if they were allowed to pass. Obviously nearly all words have connections in various other languages. It wasn't clear in the sentence whether it was the dance or it was the word, which was being referred to. My edit can be improved upon. MelForbes 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, it might be better to delete the sentence entirely. I was trying to avoid that situation thinking that in the future an editor might expand on the particular reference with a clearer explanation. I'll try to get some sources at the library that might help with the article. MelForbes 11:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I know the particular Germanic dance in question. It's not the same as the Celtic jig. MelForbes 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication
It was originally done that way because I understood that links to references that required registration (free or not) were to be avoided. That was compounded by people removing information or putting an unsourced tag on because there was no reference at all. Did you see the comment at User talk:Wangi. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think about it at the time but it's something that a lot of people are guilty of, assuming that because we know what we are writing about then everybody else does too. A lot of airport articles use abbreviations like OLS, DME, NDB etc but never spell them out. It's not just confined to airport articles though. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Aryan vs. Aryan race for skinheads
Colin, if you're still interested in the above, I replied to your comment on that Humanities Reference Desk query (already archived!). -- Cheers, Deborahjay 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bradford German Wikipedia
Would you please check this?

"Der Leiter der NSDAP Auslands-Organisation (AO), Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, wurde 1903 in Bradford geboren."

You will find it in the German Text under Bedeutende Persönlichkeiten. I think it could be wrong. Trolls maybe? Greetings --82.83.238.124 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Gabriel-Royce (German Wikipedia)

Trafalgar Studios
Re: the rude edit summary you wrote in conjunction with the unnecessary change you made to this article, "legitimate" is not a "bizarre" word in describing a theatre. As defined in the dictionary, "legitimate theatre designates one presenting professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from motion pictures, vaudeville, etc." It's a common term. Additionally, there is no reed for a "reference" template, as the external link leads to the Official Website, which was the reference. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bradford Sweet Poisoning
Finally got around to writing it - care to give a critique?--Crestville 17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be back on it's old page now. I put the links there out of habit and I've been wanting to learn how to merge footnotes so that's all very helpful. You're right, the official name is the Kirkgate Center and I'll change it, though in my defence I always call it the Arndale center. I'm actually in Notingham now so Ican't check Bradford Library just now. Massive thanks though.--Crestville 15:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dulse
You referred to Rhodymenia palmata...it is indeed a synonym of Palmaria palmata (dulse) An old synonym. Old synonyms are usually noted in (brackets). Sometimes there ccan be several or even more synonyms. You may find "Algaebase" interesting ...I wll return to this note when I'v checked the website. Osborne (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Most Conservative Norwegian Dialect
Yes, some dialects are more conservative in some areas then others, but taking all things considered, which is the most conservative?70.74.35.144 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Impact Theatre Co-operative
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Impact Theatre Co-operative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Impact Theatre Co-operative. &mdash;dgies tc 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact Theatre again
Hi Colin. Remember me, the Impact Theatre Co-operative guy. You will have seen the notice above. Is there anything that we can do to stop the article from getting deleted? I have no way of establishing notability beyond what is on the web, and as we discovered earlier there is not much to go on. (I just had another look.) There were many newspaper articles on the company at the time, but they are not on the papers' websites. I would have thought the Hoban connection itself would have been enough to pacify the deletionists, but obviously not. Any thoughts? Best wishes, --Richardrj talkemail 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great work - thanks very much. The more I read about Impact, the luckier I feel to have seen even just two of their productions (when I was just 16 or 17!). --Richardrj talkemail 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew memorial
Greetings, Colin! I've added a response to your query and hope it point in a helpful direction (and isn't too late...). I don't know the grammatical terms for the various passive forms, nor am I all that knowledgeable on the topic, but as an archivist in Holocaust-era history, I know there are Web-accessible information resources on Jewish burial customs so you're not restricted to local resources. I hope you'll be able to clear this up (by the unveiling date?) to everyone's satisfation, and that you and your family will know no more sorrow and be free to cherish the memory of your late mother. -- Best, Deborahjay (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. Though the mason doesn't know the words, he assures me that many female memorials in that cemetery have, and I have found a photo of one such here: (Linda Bayfield on P.9. This is a different Reform cemetery, which suggests it may be common in that sect.) So I've said to go ahead. I do intend to ask further though, perhaps at the stone-setting itself.
 * With respect to your linguistic suggestions: yes, clearly could stand as well for, but I've not found any evidence that it does so, and as you say that still does not account for the difference. Your suggestion that  means 'has been lain' seems to fit, though I cannot find it in Segal & Dagut's dictionary other than with the 'conceal' meaning. But Google translate gives it (in the masculine) for 'here lies', but not for 'lies', 'she lies', or 'here she lies', suggesting that it is a fixed expression. --ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD nomiation of Kara Kennedy Allen
Hi there! Could you point me in the direction of the previous AfD, as I can't find it to check before i delete. Thanks. Ged UK  18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I linked it on that article's talk page, when I explained the situation to the editor who had recreated it. It's WP:Articles for deletion/Kara Kennedy. I don't know how to lok at the pre-deletion page for comparison: I've no reason to suppose that the new creation is textually close to the original, but in my view it doesn't address the reasons for which it was deleted, and the recreator's comment on the talk page suggests they don't understand WP policies. Thanks. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hi there. You did link it, sorry I didn't see it through the piped link. And yuo can't look at the predeletion version, only admins can see stuff that's deleted. Thanks for your help. Let me know if it pops up again. Ged  UK  07:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued from Language desk: Prescription
The fact that nobody says *I are or even *I aren't suggests that nobody interprets aren't in aren't I as a contraction of are not. And of course I believe in prescriptive grammar as a social phenomenon: I just don't believe that it has much to do with the grammar of English (or any other language). --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * People don't interpret aren't I as a contraction for "are not I" because they don't interpret its root at all, not because they interpret aren't in this case as a contraction of anything other than "are not" (nor because they are making a special exception for the grammatical acceptability of "I are" in this specialized case). "Aren't" in this context is neither straightforwardly interpreted as "are not" nor interpreted as not being "are not"; it is simply used, with the understanding that it is a contraction but without any particular folk-linguistic notion of why it (and not, say, "Isn't I?") is being used there. That leaves someone trying to determine the term's broader meaning and significance with only two options: either we accept that "aren't" is a brand-new term that simply looks (and is historically linked) to the "aren't" which is a contraction of "are not", or we accept that "aren't" is still the same word (the 'are not' contraction), being misused out of habit because the stigmatization and dialectization of ain't has left a hole in our pronominal contraction schema, and a similar-looking word has been appropriated for that use and sustained out of habit, not out of anyone putting any actual conscious thought into its meaning at any point in the process.
 * These two theories are both possible explanations; but the idea that aren't in this context is understood by users as an actual contraction of two words other than "are not" (or even the idea that users consciously understand aren't as not being a contraction of anything) does not seem feasible, simply because users do not seem to have their own conception of what kind of term "aren't" is in this context, other than that it's some sort of contraction that may be used in a particular, socially prescribed syntactic formula.


 * I don't think you've said anything here that I disagree with, but it seems to me that you've reversed yourself. I don't think that either ain't or aren't are analysed, and I can't see any synchronic difference between them. other than the sociolinguistic observation that aren't I is widely accepted in speech but ain't is frowned on everywhere. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't reversed myself &mdash; the theory I'd choose from those two would be that aren't is the same word in a new usage, being used ungrammatically (relative to the rest of the verb system) because it fills out a schema and looks superficially workable. But I wanted to clarify and acknowledge the alternative theory, that aren't in this context is effectively a brand-new word. (Also, ain't is not frowned on everywhere. It's dialectized, and associated by extension with a 'sociolect'. ) -Silence (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't find the question of whether it is or isn't a new word very significant or interesting, but if you do, then you've justified treating them differently. And of course ain't dialectal and sociolectal; but in contrast to the 1870's, I don't believe it occurs in any prestige dialects, hence3 my 'frowned on'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And if you don't think prescriptivism has much to do with the grammar of English, then I'm afraid you'll have a lot of explaining to do in the field of childhood language acquisition. :) Prescription has been around for as long as language itself has, and has a much older, much more important and influential role to play than mere description.
 * And, in fact, most description is merely rephrased, euphemistic prescription: 'People X do Y' is just a reformulation of 'If you're X, you should do Y'. (And, arguably, a less valid one, since a descriptive generalization will almost always, strictly speaking, be false because there will be occasional exceptions; a normative statement, on the other hand, does not need to appeal to slippery statistical models to be valid.) Whether you're a descriptivist or a prescriptivist has less to do with your philosophy than it has to do with whether you like writing in the third person or the second person. ;) -Silence (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're going to agree on this one. I don't think prescriptivism has a large part to play in language acquisition, and a statement like "in English the definite article always stands first in its NP" is entirely descriptive: it does not need to be prescriptive because, being a part of real English grammar, it never has to be taught to native English speakers. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If prescriptivism didn't have a large part to play in language acquisition, then parents would never correct the grammar, spelling, or pronunciation of any linguistic output of their children. Perhaps all parental efforts in this vein are redundant (or even counterproductive), but it seems nevertheless to be an ubiquitous aspect of child-raising. Accordingly, I would not be so quick to leap to the assumption either that explicit prescription is utterly useless or that it is absolutely central.
 * I would also note that a phrase like "in English the definite article always stands first in its NP" is both a description and a prescription. We can determine this because if an English-speaker violates this rule, we don't change the description to fit the new facts; we dismiss the speaker's output as error (and perhaps try to explain the error). The reason we don't ascribe more normative weight to the phrase is simply because it's such a widely followed rule; it has nothing to do with people being apathetically objective descriptionists with regard to this rule. -Silence (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that argument is like saying "If God didn't exist, parents wouldn't spend their time teaching their children about him, sending them to Sunday School etc." It shows that many parents believe in the importance of prescriptive grammar, but it says nothing one way or the other about its relevance to acquisition.
 * It is clear that where there are strong prescriptivist constraints, they have an effect on children's language. But it is certainly not ubiquitous, except in certain cultures and subcultures. You can call my rule a prescription if you will, but I think that's a perverse characterisation. Unlike the prescriptive rules over which so much ink has been spilt and so many children terrorised, it is not even recognised as a rule by ordinary speakers because it is internalised and English speakers simply don't violate it (except for deliberate effect). --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kara Kennedy Allen
Hello ColinFine, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kara Kennedy Allen - a page you tagged - because: article has changed significantly since last AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ronewirl's User page
Hi. I just got your message today. Who was offended by my userpage? Is it the sole purpose of Wikipedia to promote knowledge, as so many youngsters today from around the world have easily and quickly discovered? Had my Userpage contained intimate details about Satan instead, would Wikipedia find the same to be just as offensive? Ronewirl (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for explaining what I should put in my article for House of Heroes. (for the stuff saying don't put the song meaning in if it's a rumor, only if it has reliable sources) I'm going to try to make that article much better. Thanks. User: Moptopstyle1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

List of Arabic loanwords in English
Sadly, English philology is a much-maligned field today, and not the subject of much lay interest either, and therefore particularly subject to misinterpretation. I manage to chip in with what I can, now and then. Nevertheless, I thank you for your appreciation. Voltigeur (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you make any comments on this?
I just copied this from our recent discussions, and it would be appreciated if you could point any errors and be able to provide the grammatical reasons (here bellow or in my talk page). If you want, please delete this post once you read. Thank you.

Or, here are few other options:
 * In 1, the sentence needs a subject that can correspond the second clause, like--In order to be understood a speech, proper articulation and pronunciation are necessary.
 * In 6, the correlative conjunction lacks parallelism; needs a parallel NP, like--I was told that I could get both a degree in designing and a position to become a teacher.
 * The 8 have options on split infinitive, like--When we go to the lake on weekends, I have to sleep either in the car or in a broken down bed.
 * The 10 is vague in terms of its subordination. An options would be--I have often heard the saying that 'experience is the best teacher'. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - 5 are all examples that are frowned on by descriptive grammarians, because the (implied) subject of the subordinate is not the subject of the main clause. In my view, said grammarians have simply not noticed that English grammar changes, and such expressions are common and cause no real confusion. They are best avoided in formal writing, but that is a question of style, not grammar.
 * 6 and 8 are broken in their lack of parallellism. I don't think anybody would say these, but people do sometimes write them, and they read oddly. (As to the split infinitive: there has never been a rule against this in English grammar, except insofar as somebody invented one and put it in grammar book and other people taught it).
 * 7, I can find no fault with
 * 9 is perfectly grammatical, and means exactly what it is intended to mean. But because it is formally ambiguous, pedants love to mock examples of this type, and pretend they are ambiguous or have a different meaning. They don't. It's just that the narrow and often irrelevant set of rules that the pedants have learned do not generally include such crucial parts of language as conversational implicature.
 * The only thing wrong with 10 is the omitted word 'it'. This is effectively an idiom: 'heard it said'. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I expected somethings else, but there are some additional information as well. Thanks. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you from Phantomsteve

 * Well, thank you, Mr friendly ghost. And a happy new year to you. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Mihkaw napew and the reference desk
In case you're interested, I have started a proposal to have Mihkaw napew banned from responding to comments on the Language reference desk. The relevant thread is WT:RD. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted question
Hi, I deleted the question on malysz as nearly no one who responsded appeared to think it was a genuine question and give the history of similar questions from that IP. Feel free to discuss it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of Penzance
Thanks so much for your correction! I was so overjoyed to find a "mistake" I could fix I didn't think that it might have been correct initially. Once again, thanks, especially for being so nice about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.108.96 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being gracious about being corrected! --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

removal
Sorry, you're right, I should have dropped you a note about the removal; all I remembered to do was mention the removal on the discussion page. Since I was able to discern a question that had an answer, your unhelpful paragraph seemed ripe for removal. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have removed it if the question had been true gibberish and I had nothing to contribute. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bradford Telegraph and Argus
Thanks for keeping an eye on this poor, tortured page. Although it remains a stub, every now and then it is vandalised and then corrected by what appears to be on the one hand a hostile element of the readership, and on the other hand an element of the newspaper staff. I'm an outsider and my only interest has been providing images, and then watching it for vandalism. I get the feeling that the bit about being printed in India is either not true, or is a disputed point. Either way, there is no citation for it. Several of us try to keep the page tidy, but only the edit-war guys appear to have any inside knowledge. Ah, well. We can but try.--Storye book (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:Liverpool - the last decade
Hi, there were two reasons I changed it. Firstly, the data I was using runs from 1998-2009 and I felt only mentioning the start without the end would make it sound dated. I was going to state 'between 1998-2009' but that would imply the changes have definitively ended, when in reality they are ongoing. Secondly, even though the council website talks about changes since 1998, I noticed that this just happened to 'coincide' with the exact year that the Lib Dem council come into power (after 25 years of Labour/NOC). Obviously, I know this isn't a real issue because all councils/organisations will put emphasis on actions that occurred under their tenureship, but I just felt using 'during the last decade' was a little more neutral and took away the focus on the changes in the economy being so closely linked to a change in the council. I have no problems if you want to revert the last edit. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't feel that strongly. Your current wording will date, but not so obviously. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to 'since the late-1990s'. Its technically correct, albeit a little less specific and crucially shouldn't date too badly. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Carmina burana
Excuse me if this is not the right place to respond to you rmessage; I'm not a usual Wikipedia user.

If you have consulted sources that recommend translating "carmen" for "song", it's ok, although I don't see any reference which supports it either. I've always translated it for "poem" -or some kind of poetic composition-, or in cases like this for "chant", taking into account the mediaeval meaning of "chant" in most romance languages, which included "poetic composition", even more than "musical composition". I suppose "song" would fit too, if we take "song" with it's "real" meaning, that's why I say if you think it's better then it's ok, but I think for modern readers "song" is too identified with music, and even more, with pop or popular music; I thought "chant" might still keep some of its ancient relation with literature and some kind of cultural "stature".

Also, I must admit I edited the article influenced by the almost telegraphic french article in WP: "« Poèmes de Beuren » (traduction littérale du latin) ou « Chants de Beuern »"

and Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana, which are entitled "Carmina burana: Cantiones profanae cantoribus et choris cantandae comitantibus instrumentis atque imaginibus magicis". He didn't write "Cantiones Burana: Cantiones profanae etc" or "Carmina burana: Carmina profanae etc". He wanted to make a difference between "carmen" and "cantio", "poem/chant" and "song". So, well... that's why I thought "chant" was better, but, again, if you think "song" fits well, ok, its fine. Sorry for messing in your article.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.145.47 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would accept "poem" for "carmen". But "chant" has a special meaning in English, which doesn't fit. (The relevant meaning is given as meaning 3 in the OED: "A measured monotonous song; the musical recitation of words.") And it's your article just as much as mine! --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Elaphe Obsoleta
Thank you for the imput. Can you pleaese give me a citation for the entry? I do not have access to the Oxford dictionary. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you want. I would cite it simply as . Note that the application of this meaning to the question about Elaphe obsoleta was my WP:OR. --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not using it for a wiki article. I'm writing a life history for a biology class on the Black Rat Snake. Thanks for the citation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic threading at Wikipedia Reference desk
Please add your comments after what they're directly in reply to, instead of indiscriminately throwing them in at the bottom of the section (something which can disrupt the logical flow of discussion, and in the case of a discussion with many participants can quickly become rather annoying). AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Classification of animal taxa
Hello! You seem knowlegeable about the subject of zoology. I am also working animal related articles of Wikipedia. I have had some debate with some other editors (administrator?) about using subfamilies. It seems that some have taken it upon themselves to delete information on subfamilies which are useful to readers. Have you had any frustrations with this?

I checked the Wikipedia Taxon page ( Taxobox_usage ) and found this: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, PLUS minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." Was some council of the scholars held deciding more? What are your thoughts on this?

Cheers, bruinfan12


 * (Please sign your contributions to talk pages using ~ )
 * Thanks for asking. I'm not specially knowledgeable about zoology: I have an interest in taxonomy and have read several books on the subject. I got involved in the argument about including Domain in taxoboxes: I have reluctantly accepted the argument from utility for omitting it in articles about particular eukaryotes, but I get annoyed when people refer to 'domain' as minor: I think they really mean "I wasn't taught this at school so it can't be important".
 * I have no particular thoughts about other taxa: the guidelines you quote seem sensible, but I gather you are unhappy about them. All such discussions happen on the talk page of an appropriate article (one of the problems here has been that parallel discussions have taken place, for example on Talk:Reptile and Template Talk:Taxobox for domains. But Wikipedia works by consensus: if editors can't agree, there is a dispute resolution procedure. Administrators are not relevant here - they have no more authority than any other editor.
 * Sorry I can't be of more help. --ColinFine (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This helps... I agree with you.
 * Also it seems that some editors treat wikipedia like their own house or family room. They have to "tidy up" things to their specifications.
 * I just read a comment about undoing one of my edits and it just said "as per style". It appeared to have the authority of the council of some concensus, but ::when I read the Taxobox usage article more closely, I think my subfamily shouldn't have been deleted. I teach at university in Japan and some of ::my students are studying to be vets. I often refer the to Wikipedia (although I tell them to check at least one or two other sources!) In the case of the Cheetah
 * especially, the subfamily of this feline is not apparent. Many of the students don't necessary navigate to the genus leve to check. Anyway just my thoughts...
 * (I hope I sign this correctly)

Cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case you should either post to that editor's talk page asking for an explanation, or begin a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. There may be other editors who agree with you. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. Some editors are stubborn, so perhaps it is best to get this up for a general discussion. People who have administrator status could seem :::intimidating, so I appreciate your encouragement. I just keep seeing comments "as per style" so I wanted to know if this was just one editor's :::preference, or the result of a mjor concensus by a large number of scholars on Wikipedia. Thanks again

Bruinfan12 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If they say "as per style", ask for a reference. They should be able to point you to a statement of what they are claiming, and you can look at that (and its history and associated talk) and see how it was arrived at. --ColinFine (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New contributors' help page
Hi ColinFine, sorry about that, I didn't know it was copied off Facebook, I can't go on www.facebook.com so I can't check it. As for understating the problems, I was just trying to avoid WP:BITE. WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't meaning to bite you either! As you said, the text looked like a magazine article so I googled a couple of words from it. I found identical text in facebook, so I COPYVIO'd it. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Facebook text was copied from somewhere else, but I didn't check).
 * We all draw our own lines of what is and isn't acceptable to say to a newcomer: I thought that it would be unkind not to mention the problems with the references; and since I was saying that, I thought I'd add that in my opinion it needed a complete rewrite not just a few words changing (this was before I thought about copyvio). I would probably not have bothered to mention that if I hadn't been posting about something else anyway.
 * In short, there's nothing wrong with what you said, but I thought it was appropriate to say more. Others may disagree. --ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, my mistake! WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook   12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Why "mistake"? What I'm saying is that there's nothing you did wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering at the time whether I should explain a bit more - I wasn't WP:BOLD enough! WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook   16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My first contribution
Hi ColinFine, I did some changes to the article as you also suggested me, so I was wandering if my article is now ok or still not ok to be published ?--Oxbowoly (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You may or may not have got round the copyright issue - I would say not, but I'm not sure. (In any case, if you want to work on it, you should follow the advice on the copyright notice, not edit it in place). But that is not enough to turn it into an encyclopaedia article.
 * It is almost impossible to take text written as a chatty magazine article and turn it into an encyclopaedia article.. You would do much better to use the WP:Article wizard and start from the beginning. Some of the things you need to think about are:
 * what is the tone in which encyclopaedia articles are written
 * how do encyclopaedias address the reader (hint: usually they don't)
 * what kind of statement is acceptable (hint: statements of fact; judgments only if you are reporting a judgment from a published source).
 * Sorry again, but well done for trying. Keep going, you'll get there in the end. --ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point, Oxbowoly: absolutely the first thing you should do, before you rewrite it or anything else, is to read WP:BAND and find the references that you require to establish that the band is notable. If you cannot do find these, then the band is not notable, the article will not be accepted into Wikipedia, and all of your work will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok ColinFine, I'll start from the beginning again. I checked the WP:BAND before that's why I started to write an article as they fit the criteria for a band. I started to write something because they were red inked at the Pukkelpop festival wikipedia article. Anyways, won't be for today as I call it a day after 2 days trying to write my first wikipedia article. Thanks for your help.--Oxbowoly (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Free Festival / Free Fringe
ColinFine - you marked two articles related to free shows for deletion - However I think they are both very important. I have added the following reason why I don;t think they should be deleted to both discussions and would like your advice in how they can be updated and the deletion notice removed.

The importance of the Laughing Horse Free Festival and PBH Free Fringe cannot be understated at Edinburgh Fringe... and therefore on Wikipedia. C Venues is just another collection of venues with the same business model that puts artists into debt. However the Free Festival and Free Fringe are challenging this traditional model in order to give artists and the public an alternative. See Harry Deansway's article about how much the traditional model costs performers

The importance of Free

The Free Venues give artists an alternative that is not as costly. For a long time Free Venues were seen as second rate. Artists felt that they could not get reviewed unless they did a paid show. However this is becoming less and less the case and Imran Yusuf's Fosters award for Best Newcomer in a free venue is really ground breaking. 

There are also large differences between Laughing Horse Free Festival and PBH Free Festival which are growing to provide two distinct opportunities to performers. PBH is a purist who feels the Free Venues should be run as a collective with everyone putting in an equal amount of work for the good of the group. Laughing Horse's approach is more commercial and aims to find an alternative business model which is economically sustainable but is a much cheaper option for punters and performers. This difference means that Laughing Horse is able to provide more support in terms of PR and marketing for performers, something which is set to grow. Laughing Horse is not adverse to sponsorship and just missed out on a large deal for this years event  comment added by Bobslayer (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed this comment. I can't find any record that I ever have nominated Free Fringe for deletion: but unless the article is improved to provide enough references to establish notability, I shall do so.
 * The criterion for articles in Wikipedia is that their subjects have sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to establish that they are notable: it makes no difference how worthy the subject is. See WP:NOBLECAUSE.
 * Your plastering "DO NOT DELETE" on the top of the talk page is inappropriate and not likely to win you any supporters if there is a WP:Deletion discussion, and your arguments there and here have nothing to do with whether the article is appropriate to Wikipedia or not.
 * If you think the article is worth keeping, you need to establish that it is on Wikipedia's terms - which means finding multiple independent reliable sources which cover the subject - at present there is precisely one independent reference, which refers to one event concerning the FF.
 * Declaration of interest: I am probably a little more forceful with you than I might otherwise be, because I resent your imputation that any venue which isn't free to performers is run by money-grabbing bastards. As somebody who has put a great deal of unpaid time, and a considerable amount of my own money, over fifteen years, into providing (commercially run but non-profit-making) venues so that performers can do their stuff at the Fringe at all, I take exception to this. --ColinFine (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

UserPage Revisited
It would seem one "Sven Manguard" sees it fit to nominate my userpage for deletion. Is the "issue" still unresolved? Ronewirl (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with me, though now you have brought it to my attention I have contributed to the discussion. I have argued for keeping it: as I said on your talk page, I think it is no longer contrary to WP's policies. --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying my confusion. Frankly, the second nomination is weird.  During a small group discussion this past Sunday at church, I revealed in confidence that I have been editing in Wikipedia and have had my userpage blocked before because of its evangelical message....Strange things happen whenever there's people involved (regardless of race, gender, age, socio-economic background, beliefs, and so on....).  It's in the work place (peers against peers gunning for the same prize - bigger pay, better perks or that promotion).  It happens among children - complaining Santa brought little Johnny a new toy truck whereas the kid next door, little Stephen got a Nintendo WII.  And it happens in churches too.  Fortunately, I was raised by philosophical parents who taught that in life, I make my own choices, and no one but me controls my actions/thoughts/behavior.  Since I don't know what your belief system is, I thank you and bid you adieu.  Cheers.  Ronewirl (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You did not have your user page blocked because if its evangelical message: you had your user page deleted because you were asked to, and did not, remove inappropriate material from your Wikipedia user page. It was inappropriate because it was inconsistent with the current guidelines, not because it was evangelical (or rather, not because of the particular cause for which it was evangelical). Nobody expressed a problem with its content, only with its appropriateness to Wikipedia.
 * To me it appears that you are inclined to interpret every setback as an attack on your beliefs. You have three times used the words "offend" or "offensive", and once "bad" in discussions, where not one person has ever said that the material you posted was either offensive or bad.
 * I agree entirely with your observation that politics (with a small 'p') regularly appears in any grouping of people, but I disagree with your interpretation that this it what happened here (well, in my view it happened when you interpreted the second MfD as a personal attack. It certainly wasn't there in my original nomination of your page.)
 * Have a good Christmas (if you celebrate it. I don't but I take the opportunity of a civil holiday season to visit my relatives). Colin. --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

USATF Masters Hall of Fame
I had issues with naming this article and I'm not sure we are there yet. It is destined to be linked to the already misnamed National Track and Field Hall of Fame, of which this Hall of Fame is a subsection. "National" is extremely jingoistic or Americentric, exclusionary to the rest of the world, particularly the english speaking world. However, that name is not only spread throughout wikipedia, but is also embedded in WP:ATH Guideline, thus a condition of notability. Obviously, this Hall is not limited to Track and Field as it has Roadrunners and Racewalkers. Both of those sub-categories are under the administration of USATF, but politically those groups also take offense at the name of the organization (being exclusionary to those groups in name by omission). Most specifically, USATF was left off of the National Hall of Fame article title. Their administration is potentially fleeting, the organization changed name in 1991 and was created in 1978 to replace the AAU. Masters specifically has a political movement aimed at seceding from USATF which potentially might happen in the next decade. Sure, all this can be accomplished by wiki redirect, but I was trying to take all this into account in creating the (more generic sounding) name. Trackinfo (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in this article, and haven't set a watch on it. I was simply correcting an obvious error, I thought - I was puzzled why you created it with the name you did, when neither it nor its reference appeared to do so. If you have reason to change it back, I probably won't even notice: but I would urge you not to do so until you can cite sources which do use that name. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum
Hi Colin-- Thanks for the feedback on my proposal. I've added the citation back in as you suggested. Look good otherwise? Thanks, --CBuiltother (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me (assuming that the references actually support what you say, which I haven't checked). --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Colin -- Thanks again for your feedback. I've have another revision to the Occidental article which I've proposed (found here - talk page here). If you have any more feedback, I'd certainly welcome it! --CBuiltother (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement
If you recall on the New Contributors Help page, you replied to my question about the article plasq being like an advertisement. I've done a little work (though a lot still needs to be done), and was wondering if you could look at it and tell me if it is progressing in the right direction. I've added other some other references, not just the company's web page, I've added a history section (which needs a lot of work, still), and I removed some of the more minor products. I would appreciate it if you could just take a look at it and give me some feedback. Thanks for helping, and I hope I'm not bugging you! --Thekmc (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is much improved, and I have removed the 'advert' tag. However, I've replaced it with a 'refimprove' tag: some of the references are not obviously reliable.
 * I've reworded the bit about Skype. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm glad it's better. Thanks again for your help. --Thekmc (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Passing Strange
Hi, thanks for the message. Intentional. You removed more than just what the IP added; you removed some material that had been in the article for a while, is adequately referenced, and seems notable enough to me. It was the first production by a professional repertory company, so it seems OK to me. Feel free to leave a message on the article's talk page if you disagree. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Alpha Phi Omega members
Please let me know which of the entries in WP:ELNO you believe that the link at docs.google.com violated.Naraht (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my objection. Now that I have looked at the primary article, I understand that ΑΦΩ is essentially only in the US and the Philippines. It appeared to me originally that just one section of an international organisation was being linked to, and this seemed gratuitous, along the lines of "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." (from WP:ELNO).
 * I have added a sentence to the List article explaining why it is appropriate that the Philippines be specifically mentioned in it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment
If this was an AfD or policy debate, I would welcome discussion of semantics, but on the new contributor's help page it is completely out-of-place. In this case, I made one mention of importance as a synonym for notability (having used that word several times already) in order to help the new user understand what I was talking about. By all means nitpick elsewhere, but otherwise assume with ~40 created articles and 6,000 edits I know the difference between importance and notability, and am deliberately simplifying terms to aid the new user. Thanks  Jebus989 ✰ 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But in this case your simplification seemed to me to be saying to the user "The band you are interested in is not important" which is not something I want to be saying to new contributors.--ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my reply, (you repeated half of it) about making an article and gave the same links to reliable sources. To think a new user, totally unfamiliar with our practices, is going to say "well my band meets all these 'notability' criteria I've been linked to; ah, but one time he uses the word important, well that is slightly different term. I won't make the article then" is absurd. I make absolutely no statement about whether this band is notable, important, famous, skilled, or anything else.  Jebus989 ✰ 17:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't for a minute think a new user is going to think that. I do think that a new user may read "this is an encyclopaedia which only covers important, notable musicians" and think "what business has he saying my favorite band is not important". That is why I avoid using evaluative terms like "important" in discussions about notability, and am inclined to add a note when I see others doing so. I'm sorry if you thought I was nitpicking. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I made no comment about the band in question not being important or notable, I was speaking in general terms; a point which should have been made clear by my first paragraph explaining how to check notability and create an article. If the new user had raised such concerns, I would obviously clarify my reply. Continue to critique the importance/notability distinction in areas it is important, by all means  Jebus989 ✰ 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This made me laugh. CIF misquoted me, replacing notable with important! But it seems he got the same impression you did, so you were right and I apologise  Jebus989 ✰ 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my concern: I've seen it before. Thank you for your graceful apology. I've answered his new question. --ColinFine (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, I appreciate that you were on hand to mediate the dispute about Abū al-Wafā' Būzjānī‎. No reply necessary. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Because you are Fine by name and fine by nature!

Manytexts (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 

Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood
Your bot has made a number of spelling and punctuation changes to this page, but -
 * Most of the spelling changes are in old quotations. I haven't checked the originals, but I have no doubt at least some of them were correctly transcribed.
 * Furthermore, it seems to replace '...' with '. ..', which is plain wrong.

Yours, --ColinFine 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Colin. I've made note of the spellings in the quotes on that page. Also, you're quite right about the bot introducing spurious spaces into ellipses; this happened as an inadvertent side effect to a change I made to the bot recently. I've fixed it now. Thanks again. CmdrObot 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Osborne (talk)== Topdog == Good day Colin. Thanks for your comments. I started searching for other references to Top/under dog and saw pits, so far without any luck. I note that the term 'dog' was widely used for the 'hinge' on hinged structures on ships - port holes, etc. I will keep on digging. Any help would be much appreciated. Rosser 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a citation for Joe Ray and have therefore undone your undoing of him being added to the list of OMTs. 90.195.15.129 (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Help Desk post
Thanks for this edit, Colin. I was kind of confused about "ignore" there until you explained. FWIW the German verb "ignorieren" means what it appears to mean in English: to brush off, disregard, ignore, slight. Regards, Tonywalton Talk 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

John McKean (architectural author)
Hi - thanks for your comments Wow, as this is my first attempt to create a page I'd no idea it was so complicated.

I'm a bit thrown by the citation requirements as I guessed all the information I got is easily verifiable in the public realm. But I know I said he "published numerous papers" for example - which is very unspecific, but he sent me a long bibliography which I gather was also in Brighton University website until he left, but that would be daft to detail. He should be widely known, but this is not his CV!

I'll give it a go, and any further thoughts very gratefully received. Cheers, Laurie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie melville (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not easy to create a page that will stick. I should have directed you to WP:YFA: if you haven't read that, please do.
 * As you say, listing all his papers is not appropriate. But again, what matters in the first instance is not what he has published, but what has been published about him.
 * One more point: on talk pages (such as this) please sign your messages with ~ (or pick the 'Signature' symbol when editing). --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I've had another break in work and a chance to get together a pile of citations - 2 to 3 pages A4 reviews, citations, awards of his writing - which I hope makes sense... I have gone through WP:YFA but I must be a bear of very little brain as I can't really see how to insert the stuff. How can I show to see if this is the material you felt necessary?. Thanks a lot.Laurie melville (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Does WP:CITE help? --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Superstar (Original Australian Cast Recording)
Two points:
 * 1) I'm still working on the article and hopefully more references will be supplied.
 * 2) Would renaming it as Jesus Christ Superstar (Australian version 1972) work better than deleting the article?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you are still working on it. But unless and until you establish that it is notable, your work will be wasted. For that you require that the album (not the stage production, or the songs, or the show, but that particular album) has been significantly discussed (not just listed) in multiple independent reliable sources.
 * I doubt if you will find these, which is why I have proposed it for deletion: if I am wrong, you will have improved the article enormously by finding them!
 * As for the name - that won't make any difference to whether the article is notable. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More sources supplied. I've now voted for the article to be kept. As for the renaming, if the focus of the article is the stage production then the Milesago reference is more than just an incidental mention. In any case, I believe I've established the article's notability. By the way, I would have appreciated more time between my dePROD and your AfD: barely a day seems rather hasty to find reliable sources for an event nearly forty years ago. Further discussion provided at the AfD page.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lyudmila Pavlichenko
FYI, - all help welcome, of course. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal information
Are you the expert in charge of personal security at Wikipedia ? You were the person/entity that responded to my question regarding exclusion from the Wikipedia database. Please help me find the correct procedure to person/entity to ensure my name cannot be used in the Wikipedia database. I am looking for a person/entity that can thoughtfully discuss my concerns, which perhaps are more strange, unique, and/or important than is obvious. Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.137.21 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess this is in response to WP:Help desk. I'm afraid the answer is no: I'm not an expert, and I'm not in charge of anything - I'm not even a Wikipedia administrator, just an editor who tries to help on the Help desk. I don't see how Wikipedia's reporting information already published somewhere else can compromise your safety, but of course I don't know the details (and I'm not inviting you to share them with me). The best I can suggest is to follow the suggestions about emailing on the page WP:FEFS that you have already been directed to. Alternatively you might find WP:Oversight helpful, but beyond that I don't know how to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: ART Co., Ltd
Hello ColinFine, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of ART Co., Ltd - a page you tagged - because: '''Seems to have produced plenty of articles notable enough for articles. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK. As far as I can see every one of those references is either to a film which the game relates to, or is to an unreferenced and quite probably non-notable article. I'll look at AfD'ing the lot of them. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A speedy deletion declined that is interesting, as there seems to be too many unsupported claims for these on Wikipedia and somewhat misuse or administrative privileges. Thanks Ged UK for this insight. CatWizard777 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Indent usage in discussions
I've noted that you seem to always place your comments below the last post and indented one step further. This typically means the post is in response to the post above and to the left (by one indent). As a correct example:

Original post.
 * Response to original post.
 * Another response to original post.
 * Response to the second response to the original post.
 * Another response to original post.
 * Response to the third response to the original post.
 * Response to the response to the third response to the original post.
 * Another response to the response to the third response to the original post.
 * Another response to original post.

and so on. The following however, is quite incorrect:

Original post.
 * Response to original post.
 * Another response to original post.

The third post in this thread is indented in such a way as to denote that it is in response to the second post. This can get very confusing.

I'm sorry if my pointing this out seems patronizing or needlessly prissy, but it is often difficult to tell who you (and others who do the same thing) are talking to. We have this guide to advise users how to maintain continuity with regard to the use of indents in discussion threads.  fredgandt  20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't aware of that page, nor the convention it suggests. I have always (over six years) indented further in order to separate my contribution clearly from what went before, and had not noticed that others did anything different. I will endeavour to follow the suggestion. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure few are quite as anal as me. One way to make sure your posts get some clearance is to leave a blank line between yours and the post above. This isn't required when indenting since the separation is automatic (and obvious), but when not indented, one blank line between creates a slight gap (just enough) between the posts with equal indents. E.g. (in couplets)

No indent, blank line between.

No indent, blank line between.


 * Indent, blank line between.


 * Indent, blank line between.


 * Indent, no blank line between.
 * Indent, no blank line between.


 * Note the slight gap between the lines separated by a blank line? Anyway, that's enough of that. Hardly the most important thing to worry about.  fredgandt  21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)