User talk:Eric/Archive 6, 2018

Sought(-after) Matsutake
Hi,

I do a lot of minor copy editing to improve the delivery of words on Wikipedia pages, and noticed your reversion of my minor edit of 'sought-after' to 'sought' on the Matsutake page, in other words deleting the 'after'. I love to eat mushrooms, although I don't pretend to know much about them other than rare infections that they cause. However, 'sought-after' is an incorrect usage of the word sought that has crept into the English language, and has even appeared in dictionaries and newspapers. There is nothing that is 'sought-after' that can't simply be sought. The error may be more apparent when using the verb from which sought is derived - proper usage is to 'seek' an object, not 'seek after' something. Although the 'sought after' construction gets used, to language purists, it's a glaring misuse. Addition of the hyphen makes the misuse even more of a problem - there is no reason to be using one in this situation.

I notice from your user page that you have some facility in other languages. If you translate the sentence into one of those languages, it may help - I don't believe there's ever a modifier for seek or sought in those languages. Please reconsider and delete both the hyphen and after.

I do my copy editing because I believe the delivery of information is nearly as important as the content of Wikipedia pages, but it gets much less attention. Thanks for reading.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - Incorrigible copyeditor that I am as well, I was sure that your correction was incorrect. Nevertheless I checked the AHD*, which agreed with me. So, doubly sure of myself, I reverted your change. But now you have provoked horrible self-doubt in me! Of course, I says to myself upon reading your post, I would never write seek after. Then why did sought-after seem so obviously correct to me? I want to research why, because this belies my notion that I'm always paying attention to language. Now, that usage seems more old-fashioned or poetic to me than downright wrong, but, dang it, you've made me think that a simple sought is more correct. Still, I will say that the hyphen is properly employed even if the overall expression ain't: In a world where seek after is correct, the use of the past participle sought in a compound adjective calls for the hyphen: He wished for a world without usage errors, but, alas, the wished-for world was not to be found. All that to say I'm reverting my revert. Thanks for checking in. * Note: The AHD usually has a usage note after the definition of a problematic term, but they've dropped their standards in these latter days, granting horrors like "incentivize" entry status where previous editions rightly (and methinks generously) called it a "usage problem". So I wonder if it's the same with the adjectival sought-after. Eric talk 13:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Eric,


 * Thanks for your comments. I have two theories about the modification of 'sought'. The first is that it has been done for decades, so that even though it's incorrect, by now it's accepted. (I suppose that's how many new usages start, but at my age I'll probably never consider it correct.) I could probably prove that if I researched when and how often it first started appearing, but I think I'm too lazy. The second theory, which I can't prove, is that the opening lines of Star Trek made modifying 'seek' seem OK to a huge audience, for two generations and going strong. ("Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.") What is 'out' doing there? It's unnecessary and wrong - or at least it was unnecessary and wrong before 1966. But it makes modification of seek and sought more easy in other contexts. Just my opinion.


 * And I think you're right about the hyphen.


 * Thanks again for your answer, and for reading.


 * Ira


 * Ira Leviton (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as a longtime fan of Star Trek, I can't be objective on that use of seek out, as it's part of the Holy Canon, but I think four out of five dentists would okay it as an enhancement that emphasizes the questing aspect of the search. Do you have access to the OED? Looking now... -after and -for are part of the second entry for sought, but the only etymological example they give for is from 1881: He was the fashionable and most sought-after accoucheur (which I now learn is the French for obstetrician). ...And then I looked up seek; recommend you do as well. If you do so in the actual book form, get out the magnifying glass! A long entry, with many mentions of seek out (Roddenbury and Shatner breathing easier now), and a full sub-entry for seek after, with the earliest mention being from 1200: Sech after þing þe ðe beð biheue (seek after [thing] [the] ? ? ?). Very interesting to see the evolution of the spelling over the centuries -- many of the old citations use inflections on an infinitive form sechen. So it all looks like a question of usage style rather than hard-and-fast rules, at least seen from the eight-hundred-year perspective. Aside: Have you read The Professor and the Madman? Great book relating to the creation of the OED. Thanks for the barnstar! Think it's my first! Cheers. Eric talk 17:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On Lamorak
Hey, for the first source you cited about the alternate name, i cant find anywhere in it that says 'lamorat', it only says Lamorak. The 2nd source checks out though. 208.102.180.134 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That source was for Lamorak. I restored it. Before reverting the edits of an experienced editor, it's best to consult with him or her regarding concerns you have about the edits. Eric talk 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job keeping a cool head when dealing with this IP Eric. I've dealt with it before and it was quite a headache! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I wonder what percentage of wp edits stem from dealing with problematic IP editors. It might have been a nice idea from an experimental aspect to allow unregistered users, but it seems well past time to conclude that chapter of the experiment. Eric talk 13:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I'm not sure what would be the best way to handle it as I don't have all the facts on how much vandalism is caused by random IPs, but accounts would seem like the most simple way of dealing with it. I guess as wikipedia has less editors than before, they do not want to do too much to discourage editing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000's river renaming
Hi Eric, see my latest at User talk:ZH8000. Bermicourt (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I commented there. I also tweaked a couple of those river articles, but they want more English help. Don't have time right now to do more. ZH's obstinance is tedious; I see a lot of that on en.wp from non-native speakers -- an unfortunate phenomenon. See what you think of my solution at Melach. That could be done to some or all of the others. I think if the beginning of the first sentence introduces the fact that the topic is a river, then continues by saying it's a tributary of Foo, we can dispense with a second use of "River" in that sentence. Eric talk 12:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a US or British river where "River" is part of the official name, I think it's less critical in the opening sentence of a river article provided it says something like "The Foo is a tributary of..." or "The Foo is a river, 122 km long, in..." And it fits in with the article naming convention, certainly for European rivers. Where it's more important to use "River Foo", "Foo River" or "Foo river" is in non-river articles e.g. "The Foo runs through the town centre" is ambiguous whereas "The Foo river runs through the town centre" is clear. My personal preference for European rivers is either "River Foo" or "Foo river" in those articles, but that's because a) I'm a Brit and b) believe European articles should generally use British English (because it's an official EU language etc.), lol. Bermicourt (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But wait, you guys quit the club, no? An island nation once again? ;) I like "River Foo" better -- the lowercase "r" makes my eye twitch a bit. Cheers, Eric talk 11:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Vignette stuff
Robert McClenon closed off the discussion on the dispute noticeboard as ZH800 doesn't wanna join, and he probably didn't like me posting about how ZH8000 tried to get the talk page protected too behind our backs. I've added a clear proposal of what to put in the article on the article's talk page here.

Please comment if you still care to get dragged into this mess :) 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance
Why did you revert my posting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizymon (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See the talkpage Talk:Argument_from_ignorance. Try to improve your communication and editing habits. Eric talk 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes He trying to revert my post as well just wondering why ? Trisorn Triboon (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Eric Just One Question to ask you How many species of Hibiscus have you seen in your life time ? I have seen over 300 and less than 100 I wanted to shared are there any problem if other want to see them ? or if there other way to contribution please do so but what you did also tear a person away as you have been experienced the same issue before. if I got it wrong please Kindly let me know About IBAN ? Trisorn Triboon (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue about explanation of Personal Gallery Definition ?
Please kindly explain me about definition of Personal gallery in wikipedia ? and The reason of conclusion about what did would concluded as personal gallery ? --Trisorn Triboon (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talkpage. Please don't post the same question to the same person in multiple places. One thing you want to avoid here is making a lot of work for others. Eric talk 11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Dolomite Problem"
(Moved from Eric's user page to here):

Dear Eric, The Dolomite Problem is still a recognised problem in science. How should we include this in the article? (posted by )
 * Hello Kelly- Please see your talkpage: User_talk:Kelly222 Eric talk 04:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Eric I don't know how to put this on the right place. Can you put it there and tell me your answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , I answered you on your talkpage, which is linked above. I suggest you follow the links in the welcome messages there and learn some basics of editing on Wikipedia before you do much more editing here. Eric talk 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Eric, I am sorry you are taking this attitude that process and editing expertise is more important than content. Will you please answer my question: does science recognise that there is a Dolomite Problem? If so, then your removal of the edit was unhelpful for the encyclopedia. Some people don't have time to learn all the ins and outs of editing, they just want to make a small but useful contribution and they find that people wipe out their efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Perche
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

ARTTRANSLATOR
Thank you Eric for your welcome. I support wikipedia and wish him long life.

By the way I have not added the passage you have deleted. It was staying since 9 years and was a translation of the french wiki on this subject. I think we must keep it.

Best Regards Arttranslator (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello/Salut - I'm glad you like Wikipedia. I realize that the sentences I deleted (copied below) were not added by you. I deleted them because they are not what we call "encyclopedic" in style, and because no source is given for the statements. The first one uses a temporal construction that we try to avoid in articles here. The third one is nearly incomprehensible as translated:
 * Until recently, paintings of this artist were rather rare on the Art market. Emma Lebacq, wife of the painter, was a wealthy person. So she granted him for devoting body and soul to the painting but not to trade it.


 * Eric talk 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That original research
I've mentioned it at WP:NORN. I don't understand why some people behave the way they do, or why someone with autoreview status and here 13 years doesn't know basic policy. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that and reining him in. I attribute such behavior to an overdeveloped sense of ownership and/or to never having been edited or told "no" during one's formative years, and, of course, to the devolution of homo sapiens in general. Eric talk 16:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unhelpful reverts
The Solutrean article contains a horrid contradiction. Work to resolve the confusion with research. If you can't, then be sure attention is called to the problem. If you don't know toe solution to, nor even understand, the controversy, then exercise your editing initiative elsewhere.

Thank you.Jamesdowallen (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Amusingly, I note that someone who might know the subject matter eliminated the gallery item in question! Their attention wouldn't have been attracted to the discrepancy by just a Talk page note, contrary to your claim.

It was stupid to remove the image altogether, of course, if only the caption were wrong. Since you seem so interested in Solutrean sewing needles perhaps you can confirm the image and add it back to the Gallery with a more intelligent caption.

Thanks in advance.Jamesdowallen (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , has been active on the Solutrean article for years, which you can see with a quick glance down the article's edit history. So, once again, I remind you that the article's talkpage is the place to bring up and discuss your concerns, rather than in an imperious post on one editor's talkpage. In addition, you are more likely to succeed in starting a useful discussion if you choose a more collegial section heading than the one above. Eric talk 18:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the comment about Doug Weller is supposed to mean. He was NOT recently active when I called attention to the caption in error.  BUT he did correct the problem 3 days after I called attention it.  Thanks, Doug.


 * Therefore I provided a useful service. Since we inhabit only the single universe we will never know for sure whether Doug would have caught the problem had it ONLY been posted on the Talk page -- Doug is probably quite busy.  BUT, based on my experience at posting the needs for corrections on Talk pages here at Wikipedia, THE ODDS ARE GOOD THAT THE ERROR WOULD NOT have been caught if I only mentioned it on Talk page.  Hope this clarifies.Jamesdowallen (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of "recent", which I didn't say anyway. In any case, it was completely inappropriate to put that comment in the body of the article, and you will not convince anyone otherwise. Note re talkpage formatting: It is customary to indent posts incrementally to make following the thread easier. All caps are not necessary, and bold is best used sparingly. It helps keep talkpages from looking like internet rant forums. Eric talk 16:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)