User talk:Embram

"most every ..."
Actually, "most every ..." is ungrammatical English. --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still consider "most every" to be acceptable these days, but I have no problem with changing it to the more formal "almost every." I only changed it back (not realizing the reason you changed it) because in "correcting" it, you introduced a number mismatch. Embram (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I overlooked one element to pluralize. And no, "most every" is not acceptable English, not in the past nor these days. --JorisvS (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must disagree. Changes to grammar like this (involving phrases) become acceptable and even grammatical with use, as long as they do not cause confusion or violate some basic rule of grammar. "Most every" is grammatical, though informal, in American English. See link, for example: http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/most_1 . That said, I still do no object to your changing it to the more formal almost every, especially to appease our readers who are less comfortable with American English variations compared to British English. Embram (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is a dialectal feature. Despite that I'm quite familiar with American English, I can't remember ever having heard it, though it could be the case that I didn't take notice of it when I encountered it. In any case, it is not a construction that is acceptable in formal texts like an encyclopedia. --JorisvS (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Embram (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Kenneth Rand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  David_FLXD  (Talk) 10:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

DS alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Politics and the English language
Re this, firstly, these segments are not attributed as quotes, if they had been I might have pruned, but would not have altered text. Secondly, if they are ALL quotes they could be copyvio, but definitely should be clearly marked as quotes. I acknowledge that if the majority of sources DO counterpoise individuality with conformity, we should use that word, but other than that, I don't know how I changed meaning, it is our job to summarise content. IMO, the text had unnec. repetitions. Please ping or go to talk if you wish to reply.Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps ''this is the lead, shouldn't it summarise the balance of critical thought, rather than the content of one study and maybe that particular study deserves more coverage in 'criticism'? Which is fairly thin for such a 'milestone' work.''Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You certainly did change the meaning; I don't see how you can dispute that. Just for an example (among other things), encouraging individuality is completely different from encouraging originality. But that aside… Did you look at the original cited work to compare what its author wrote to the language you changed and the language you replaced it with? If you did look at the cited biography and the original language did not reflect what the biographer wrote then you were right to get rid of it. But replacing it with your opinion of Orwell's work is not appropriate. It would be appropriate only if what you wrote is actually a quotation (or at least a very close paraphrasing) of what the author of the biography actually wrote. Remember, that part of the article is reporting on what that particular source (the biography) is saying. What you just wrote above indicates to me that what you wrote is based on "the majority of sources" – which, if that's what you're doing, is wrong for two reasons. First, the citation is to a particular source and therefore should reflect that single source. Second, and more importantly, writing something you say is based on "the majority of sources" is either a personal opinion (which is not allowed) and/or individual research on your part (which is definitely not allowed). - Embram (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) '


 * Sorry, can we both calm down, a) this is the lead, the place for a summary of critical opinion, not the place for one commentator unless he is VERY CLEARLY the sole or primary authority, (or unless his words reflect the balance of opinion) … b) I have already acknowledged that if the balance of critics speak of 'encouraging individuality', or similar meaning, then the term should be used. My suspicion/memory is that they do not, Orwell himself tends to contrast 'real thought' with 'mechanical thought', (encouraging 'individuality', is very post-WWII and is in many ways the antithesis of his kind of disciplined mind). Yes, my use of 'originality' was a bit synth, but I couldn't think of a better summary word for 'non-mechanical', 'non-hackneyed' etc.
 * IF that part of the article is summarising only one source, it should say so (and probably shouldn't be in the lead), if any of these are quotes, that should be made clear. That one word is not worth arguing about, and I apologise if it was synth, but still think there is a better way to summarise the balance of opinion, which is what the lead should be doing, rather than just reporting one opinion. (ps … please name me or take this to talk, I never watch user pages) Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I'm being perfectly calm. If it seems I'm not, then I apologize for that. Now, as to the topic: First, a statement cannot reflect "a summary of critical opinion" if it is followed by a citation of a single reference. That indicates that what was written is a restatement of what that single reference said. Second, as I understand the rules, the only "summary of critical opinion" of a work allowed in a Wikipedia article is a summary that was published in some single reference, and then it is that reference that must be cited. Wikipedia editors cannot take it on themselves to give what they think is "a summary of critical opinion" of a work based on their own readings and knowledge because that would be either personal opinion or independent research, neither of which is allowed. Do you see what I'm saying? [I will put this on your talk page as well, as you request.] - Embram (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to copy this whole conversation to the article talk page, hope you don't mind, I think we are both right and I think I have a constructive suggestion.Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. It's much better for the conversation to be on a single page than only on the respective talk pages of the individuals conversing. - Embram (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * here, with clarification.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate name and wrong application of "Orwell"
Hi. If Spain was in fact the actual origin of this 1918 flu virus, then I'd have no qualms at all in retaining the name "Spanish Flu". It would be accurate, regardless of "stigma". But Spain was not the origin of it. Nor Spaniards. That's not even debatable. So why perpetuate the myth?

"Common name" is the line constantly used (actually mis-used) to defend this mythical and nonsensical and counter-factual debunked discredited term "Spanish Flu". I support the change for accuracy's sake, having ZERO to do with the current Chinese Flu. (Yes, I called it that.)

The problem with the "common name" argument that so many give as their excuse for keeping a mythical term is that it puts tradition over truth, feelings over facts, mythology over merits, and as I pointed out, many other countries and languages do NOT use the false term "Spanish Flu". And even today many American and British historians, writers, and professors use "1918 flu" instead. Regards. 71.190.0.81 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, 71.190.0.81 (Who are you, really?). Thanks for the comment, but I don't know why you're bothering to post it here. I certainly don't have any control over Wikipedia, and I doubt any of the bigwigs over there read my little talk page. I just gave my opinion (one of very many!) on the article's talk page, that's all.


 * Everyone's entitled to his opinion, so I have no problem with your giving yours. I should also say that I totally believe you when you say this has nothing to do (as far as your motive) with the Chinese flu. Really, I don't doubt you, although the strangely coincidental timing of this Wikipedia controversy, and the passion with which many are arguing the point, make me wonder if many of the other commentators might not have a political reason in mind.


 * I didn't say Spain was the origin of the Spanish flu. It was called that because Spanish media was the first to publicize the outbreak that occurred in Spain, even though it originated elsewhere. That's one of the ways a disease can receive its popular name. For example, the German Measles did not originate in Germany. It got its name because it was first described by German doctors. And the Ebola virus originated in the Sudan—it got its popular name "Ebola" because it was first widely publicized after a later outbreak in the Ebola River area of the Congo, just as the Spanish flu wasn't originally from Spain but was first publicized after an outbreak there. Perhaps we'd better get on that and get them to change the name of that page, "for accuracy's sake." - Embram (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)