User talk:Mogism/Archive 1

Small tags
Not sure why you removed these for the caption of the map in prognosis? It formats better when they are present. Otherwise thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that—removing Small tags from captions is one of the "general fixes" that WP:AWB applies automatically when making other changes to articles. As fas as I can tell, the fixes can only be set to "all on" or "all off", and some of the others (e.g. removing accidental double-punctuation marks) are such a useful way to fix errors that a read-through of the article doesn't spot, I'm reluctant to turn them off. Mogism (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Belgian supercentenarians
Fanny Godin is not living in the province of Liege...but in the Flemish Brabant...The oldest person ever from the province of Liege is still Elisa Dumoulin. Stop then to do some changes...Anthony Croes-Lacroix Belgian's GRG correspondent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All I did was fix the formatting so the punctuation displayed correctly, and replace a couple of obscure tags with less-confusing equivalents. I haven't made any changes to the article itself, which is on a topic of which I know nothing. Mogism (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, although I don't think I deserve any kind of recognition yet. The important people here are the people who write things rather than the people who maintain them, and I wouldn't count myself among them. Mogism (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I and all the other editors who are a part of the Guild of Copyeditors would have to respectfully disagree – quality is just as important and quantity, and maintenance work is certainly not trivial or unworthy of recognition :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The user below would appear to disagree. Although I'm repeating myself, I think it bears repeating - If Wikipedia has really become a place in which people would prefer spelling mistakes, misplaced punctuation and so on to remain in place because people consider it "trivial", then it's become a site of which I wouldn't want to be a part. Mogism (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Broodfonds
There were no typos: I kind of take that as an insult. Also, kindly refrain from automatically placing (tons of) "orphan" tags--those tags are completely redundant anyway. It is much more useful to drop your automated editing contraption and actually improve articles. In this case, it would be nice if you can find some articles to link this one to. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See my reply above. I agree that the design of the orphan tag is garish and ugly, and I'd far prefer it just place the article in a hidden category. However, I disagree totally that it's "completely redundant". Internal templates and internal links may not have the "x-factor" of crowdsourcing, verifiability and all the other buzzwords that get Jimmy Wales invited to speak at conferences, but they're the fuel on which Wikipedia runs; without them, we're just a print encyclopedia with added articles on Pokemon, train stations and cricket. The vast majority of readers of Wikipedia articles don't get to them from a direct search, but from following internal links within Wikipedia. There's no point writing a perfect article if nobody ever sees it, and the orphan tag identifies those articles where lack of visibility is potentially an issue. Mogism (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Wales's speaking engagements have to do with anything. If you are referring to me in the shitty comment above, barnstar section, well, that's nice. I repeat: there were no typos in the article, pace your edit summary. Since you seem to agree about the orphan tag, go ahead and change it, or stop placing it on articles I wrote. Internal links are not the fuel on which Wikipedia runs: it runs on content. You could, as I suggested, find some articles to link to the one you're thinking of tagging. And do you really think editors go through the "orphan" category to de-orphanize them? Maybe Bgwhite does, but he's an AWB editor with content experience. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't de-orphanize articles unless I happen on them by other means. I'm not aware of anybody who does.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't add stub to disambiguation pages
Even if AWB mistakenly suggests you should add stub to a disambiguation page like T. bicornis, remember that it is your responsibility to check all edits you make using AWB, and you should have noticed it was a disambiguation page and not made that edit. Please take more care. Pam D  22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies, my mistake; I've been manually skipping disambiguation pages (and other unexpandable/un-deorphanable articles like minor astronomical bodies, little-known bacterial species etc) but that one must have slipped through. Mogism (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! While I disagree with most of what they stand for, I find the Piratenpartei and their supporters (and their relative success in Germany when compared with their equivalents in France, Britain, Italy etc) fascinating. Mogism (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In which KoshVorlon learns not to rely on scripts
Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to Let It Shine (film) was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You might want to work a bit slower with those tools. You've put back in either a prior vandals' edit,or broken a phrase already. Slow down. "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. The only edit I have ever made to that page is this one, and the sole changes there were to correct "try to to hurt" to "try to hurt", and to fix the (incorrect per the MOS) "August 7th" to the MOS-compliant "August 7". Mogism (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as seen in Level 42, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Knock it off..... you need to work slower with these tools !!! YOu're breaking phrases in your editing. "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 14:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no idea what you're talking about; my sole edit to Level 42 was this, which fixed an "and and". Stop making spurious accusations. Mogism (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you just left a message on my talk page which was intended for KoshVorlon. Pam D  15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did - because he'd replied on your talk, I posted there to keep the conversation together. Feel free to move it across to his talk if you want to keep the thread on his page rather than yours. Mogism (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, have already done so. I don't know what he's doing, seems to be relying on totally unreliable antivandal tool and reluctant to listen to common sense. Pam  D  15:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know; he doesn't seem willing to admit that whatever script he's using is malfunctioning. It doesn't bother me—I've just quietly reverted his changes—but it does make me wonder what other "mistakes" he's reverted in the past. I know enough to disregard his warnings, and know that he's not representative of Wikipedia, but I'd imagine a lot of new users getting threats such as those he's given me would give up on Wikipedia in disgust there and then. Mogism (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the corrections on Roman Tyc's page! Should you want, there is Ztohoven page that need the same :)! THNX BRO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdvorsky (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a stab at cleaning up the first section (the part about the group, rather than the stunts). The main body of the article really needs a Czech speaker with access to the original news reports, to make sure Wikipedia's description of exactly what happened on each occasion is correct. Mogism (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks very much! Mogism (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AWB
I'm a long time AWB user. There are some things that will ruffle the feathers of others. Among alot of editors, AWB is not a nice word.

Alot of your edits recently have only added the Orphan tag, such as Amir Siraj. This has been deemed a trivial edit and will get your banned. Adding any tags will ruffle enough feathers to make your life miserable. So, I would highly suggest you uncheck the "Auto tag" feature under the options tab. Be very careful if an AWB edit changes just one letter, as others will also deem this trivial. Bgwhite (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'd certainly agree that just moving the maintenance tags around would be considered trivial, I don't think it's a reasonable position to say that adding or removing tags is a trivial edit. To my mind a "two-pass" approach, in which semi-automation is used to bulk-tag stub, orphan etc on the first pass, and then Category:Orphaned articles from June 2012 etc are manually sorted, is far more efficient than trying to fix every article at the time of the first pass. Obviously, there's a disadvantage in that it means the article pops up on people's watchlists twice. (I don't buy the "it uses up bandwidth" argument for a moment. Yes, doing it this way to tag-and-fix 500 articles means an additional 500 page impressions, but that's an insignificant figure in terms of Wikipedia's scale of operations, when even the most arcane article at DYK gets 5000 hits per day.) To my mind, the added efficiency of the two-pass system, coupled with the "if I fall under a bus it's still marked for someone else to fix" factor, means the positives of tag-then-fix far outweigh the positives of "fix every issue at the time of patrolling".


 * I agree that in an ideal world every issue with every new article would be fixed at the time of page creation. However, given the volume of new pages being added to Wikipedia every day and the limited number of new-page patrollers, that's not realistic. As things stand, the firefighting approach of "go through the backlog tagging potential issues" is the only viable alternative to "fix 10 of the new articles' issues, but let 490 slip through untouched", and once new pages drop off the end of the backlog they're very hard to re-identify.


 * I totally disagree about "don't make edits that just change one letter as others will deem this trivial". If Wikipedia has really become a place in which people would prefer spelling mistakes, misplaced punctuation and so on to remain in place because people consider it "trivial", then it's become a site of which I wouldn't want to be a part. Mogism (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * By one letter, I don't mean fixing a misspelled word. I also don't agree with the "it uses up bandwidth" argument either.  However, no matter how strong you disagree, unfortunately history is not on your side.  If you continue to just add an orphan tag or change one letter, you will be banned from AWB and possibly Wikipedia..  You have an administrator, Drmies, tell you the same thing below.  I'm trying to give you a warning of how the law of the land currently is.  Editors have been banned from using AWB over what you are currently doing. Bgwhite (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I just jump in here and say there's no way in hell that adding maintenance tags is going to get you banned. Bgwhite, can you either substantiate this or apologise? It is not helpful to go up to new(ish) editors and make statements like that. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By banned, I'm mean banned from using AWB. Sorry, I've seen it happen.  Look at message just below this for another "unhappy" user.  I've gotten yelled and threatened to where I stopped awhile back ago.  Unfortunately, I've seen way too many unpleasant exchanges between people hating the tags and AWB users.  I'm trying to help out a new user before it gets too unpleasant.   Mogism has been doing spelling fixes and copy edits lately which is wonderful as it is in dire need of help.
 * I didn't know the Orphan definition recently changed. Found out because I stepped in the middle of another editor giving a new AWB user a hard time with tagging.  The new change says to apply the Orphan tag if there are no links to the article.  AWB still tags Orphan when there are three or less due to other Wikipedia's not having the same rule. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The default setting, which is the one I've been using, is "restrict Orphan tag to linkless pages" - that is, only to tag pages with no incoming links at all. I've turned it off altogether, as I'm fed up with people shouting at me over something I don't care very strongly about, but I still think it's completely valid to tag these pages. There's a whole group of people who sort through these tagged pages and try to de-orphan them, and without tagging them the articles will hardly ever be seen. I do agree that the tag is ugly and probably ought to be invisible to readers, since readers who do find the article will by definition have searched for it directly so won't care whether it has incoming links or not. Mogism (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * You're welcome - glad I could be of help. Mogism (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Did some checking on my tool
This is regarding the message I sent you two days ago. I did some research on Lupin's tool (what I use to check for bad edits). It's not buggy, but I sure mis-read it when I tagged you for "vandalizing" a page. You didn't and I'm wrong. I'll be using more care especially when part of the text sppears to be missing. I appologize to you for it as well. "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, these things happen. Just be more careful in future before you start throwing accusations around. Mogism (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your clean-up & typo fixing work in the Naoki Hoshino article. You may want to learn the other half of that utter shocking and disgusting story here. Feel free to correct anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.22.147 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could be of help. I've always found the Japanese occupation of East Asia a fascinating period, ever since a visit to Fort Siloso when I was younger, and it's a topic that doesn't get the coverage it deserves in Europe and North America. Not speaking Chinese or Japanese, I can't really add anything to these articles (English-language sources tend to be pro-British/American, unsurprisingly), but I'm glad they're of such good quality. Mogism (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Ztohoven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Mogism (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to say thanks
Hi Mogism, just to say thanks for fixing Alhaji Bai Modi Joof. Best Regards. Tamsier (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad I could be of help. It's great to see an article on an African topic of such high quality - too many of Wikipedia's African articles are embarrassingly bad. Mogism (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL
Yes, I have, and no it doesn't. In particular,this paragraph: In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Showing the finger (telling editors f _you) and his remarks about IP's  ARE  derogatory comments about another contibutor. Perhaps we're interpreting it differently ? "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 18:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no possible way an image, not directed at anyone, is "a derogatory comment about another contributor", otherwise we'd delete every page containing anything remotely offensive. It's less than two weeks since it was overwhelmingly concluded that that page isn't inappropriate; you don't get to unilaterally rewrite Wikipedia's civility policy just because you happen to take a dislike to a page. Mogism (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Shmarya Rosenberg
Hi. Editing an article after it has been vandalised may be an error or it may not. If the former, please be more careful in the future, if the latter, see Talk Shmarya Rosenberg. Ajnem (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your insinuation that you'll block me (an action you don't have the technical ability to perform, and which no admin would carry out on your behalf in these circumstances). My entire contribution history to this article has been to fix three spelling mistakes and a malformed link; that someone else in the history has made an edit with which you don't agree (which is definitely not vandalism by any definition) is nothing to do with me. The edit in question may give undue weight to negative material about the subject's grandfather (I wouldn't call it a BLP issue, as the person about whom the negative material is written is deceased even though the article itself is on a living person) but as the editor who added it says, that's a matter for you to discuss on the talkpage, not for you to unilaterally revert as "vandalism" and to issue blustering threats about. Mogism (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I stick to the rules and assume good faith. But switching the edits and claiming that the edit I was referring to is not “a BLP issue, as the person about whom the negative material is written is deceased” is hard to swallow. Shmarya Rosenberg is very much alive. In any case, please be more careful in the future. Ajnem (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

War on Women: "redefining rape" - Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Mogism. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Commented there. Mogism (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
You corrected several typos on Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, I commend you for the assistance. 1dayFloripa (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad I can be of help. Mogism (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Windsor
Hi Mogism! I noticed here, that you have changed the new version of article issues / multiple issues to the old version. Either way is probably still correct, and it's not such a big deal, but rather unnecessary to change. I'm wondering if your AWB may require some updating. -- WikHead (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsure what you mean; article issues no longer exists as a template and has been superseded by multiple issues; I changed it from the former to the latter. It's too trivial a change to make in isolation, but was fixed as I was correcting the capitalisation of "british" anyway. Mogism (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We now use different syntax, see Template:Multiple issues. The preference is now to wrap individual tags rather than string issue-names together in a single line with pipes. Though both forms of markup are currently still supported, the new way makes it easier for non-automated users to quickly add and remove the wrapper as needed, while using existing tags (and their shortcuts) . In the case of the Michael Windsor article for example, if two of the three issues were suddenly addressed, we'd either be left with a multiple issues tag displaying only one issue, or need to completely rewrite the remaining tag as a stand-alone. -- WikHead (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Hannibal Alps
Thanks for fixing Hannibal's Crossing of the Alps. I've been dedicating a lot of work to that article and as a result have not been to scrupulous about its grammer. Your aid regarding those technicalities is greatly appreciated.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you ever plan on taking that through FAC/GAN, let me know and I'll see what else I can do. That's just the kind of article Wikipedia needs - a topic that's extremely famous, but which not many people know the details of. Mogism (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Celt (tool)
Just wanted to remark on this edit — unlike the Celts, a celt (tool) is not a proper noun. Don't let this overshadow my thanks for so many other fixes, including my "unfamilar" error that you fixed in the same edit. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I really should have spotted that one. You might want to put a notatypo marker on it, since if even a human editor lets that through, I'm sure a bot will try to fix it at some point. Mogism (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * not a typo added; thanks. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bal maiden...
...just a drive-by message to say that the article looks excellent - really nice work. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's an obscure topic, but an important one - for understandable reasons histories tend to gloss over the fact that the growth of Britain as an industrial power was driven by the backbreaking work of huge swathes of society, regardless of age or gender. Because the topic is either airbrushed out of the official histories, or presented in Dickensian terms of cruel bosses, sweet maids and adorable children, people tend not to realise just how important a role women and children played in fuelling the Industrial Revolution, or how complex the vanished old culture of Cornwall was. Mogism (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks interesting so I've review it (tomorrow). Sorry you won't get a Good article banner template from me (after it passes), but you you could award yourself if you really need one. Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Let me know if you have any questions/queries. It's very footnote-heavy, but I can't see a way to avoid that - there are a lot of various bits of background that need to be explained to readers unfamiliar with Cornwall and mining, but that would just clutter the article if they were in the body text itself. Mogism (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talkpage re the wikilink, but I have Roger Burt (1969), Cornish Mining: Essays on the Organisation of Cornish Mines and the Cornish Mining Economy & Brian Earl (1978), Cornish Explosives to hand if you need any help on those topics - and I started expanding Safety fuse (William Bickford) over a year ago, but sort off "ran out of steam"/got sidetracked. I managed to get down to Culdrose (RNAS) for two or three day-visits a long time ago but that's my exposure to Cornwall so far. Pyrotec (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The next one (if there is a next one) will probably be on shipping; either the passenger ships of the River Fal (to read the current article you'd never guess that this is one of the few UK rivers other than the Thames and Mersey that still has an active passenger ferry service), or on the Falmouth Packets, which were the main source of communications between Britain and the New World for over 150 years (navigating the Channel by sail-power was so difficult, it was quicker to drop mail off at Falmouth and carry it up-country to London by horse) but have been so completely forgotten today that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article. I'd quite like to get St Michael's Mount up to at least the standard of Mont Saint-Michel as well, although there are surprisingly few decent-quality books (as opposed to National Trust puffery) about it. Mogism (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to let you know just now, but you must have been watching. I checked Bal Maidens (the book), it's escaped from Cornwall it's now in UK, Gurnsey & USA . Congratulations, I enjoyed reviewing this one. Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's worth knowing - it looks like it's been made available for print-on-demand. (Makes perfect sense for a book like this, which will sell slowly-but-steadily potentially for decades, but will never sell at high enough volume to make it worth any bookshop outside the mining areas and the big industrial museums to stock.) Do you think I have the balance between the job and their life outside work right? User:Fifelfoo raised some concerns that it doesn't address marriage and sexuality, but (per my reply to him) I can't find anything to suggest that their domestic arrangements were at all unusual.
 * Aside from the issue I mentioned with the difficulty in source-checking, the other issue is the lack of illustrations. Because in most photos from the period the photographer was interested in the buildings or the machinery and the workers were just incidental detail, there are very few usable photos and those that exist are of questionable copyright status (as the copyright clock in English law starts ticking at first publication, not at the time it was taken, and most of them weren't published pre-1942). There's one drawing from the West Briton contrasting "The bal maiden on workdays" and "The bal maiden on Sundays" which ought to be in there if it goes to FAC (it appears in every book, it's just a case of my getting round to scanning it). Mogism (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. When you recently edited Dogg Food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unreleased (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed Mogism (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

assassinating typos
glad AWB knows how to spell assassin because I sure don't :-( Thanks for the clean up! <b style="font-family:Verdana; color:#6633FF;">StarM</b> 00:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Levógiro for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Levógiro 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/Levógiro 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 template from the top of the article. LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My entire contribution to that article was fixing the capitalisation of "spanish". There is possibly a topic I care less about than Mexican prog-rock, but I'm having some difficulty thinking of it. Mogism (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces
I was concerned to see that in your AWB seems to have led you to insert non-breaking spaces between a numeral like '20' and the word 'inches'. Would you please be kind enough to check your AWB settings as it shouldn't be doing that. See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive 23 and Sourceforge AWB revision 7887 for the previous discussions. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Inserting the nbsp's is one of the vanilla settings of AWB, which it automatically performs in the background when it makes other edits. It's probably best to raise it at WT:AWB; I can certainly disable it on my copy (and have), but that won't prevent the software from making the same change whenever anyone else visits the page. Looking at the history, this was never disabled when you raised it last year; I don't know if that was by omission or by design. Mogism (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to update to the latest snapshot (rev 8277) from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have done, but as long as the old version is the version on Sourceforge and the version listed as the current version on the homepage, this is going to carry on happening. Mogism (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gook (headgear), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardboard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I refuse to "fix" this non-existent issue, which is a reflection of overzealous disambiguation and a refusal of some people to recognise the concept of "primary usage of a term". At a first guess, I'd say 9999 out of every 10,000 people searching for "cardboard" are looking for Cardboard (paper product), and even those people who are looking for Cardboard record or the like wouldn't be in the least surprised to be taken to the page on heavy-duty paper with a dablink at the top. If my failure to comply with this idiocy results in readers being directed to the "wrong" page, then good; it will hopefully open some more readers' eyes to how tenuous Wikipedia's actual commitment to reader accessibility and usability actually is, whatever the fine words to the contrary. Mogism (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manuel Córdova-Ríos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Under construction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. (I'd like to say that despite my harsh comments above, this is a really useful service and I'd like to thank whoever runs this bot.) Mogism (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gook (headgear)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your fixes to Balinese Hinduism‎. I spotted that this religion of 4.5 million followers only had two sentences in Wikipedia, so did a quick expansion - which I intend to continue - but left some typos behind. Thanks for tidying up after me. Davidelit (Talk) 10:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help! Mogism (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

templates
Thanks for the advice about Madrid Atocha railway station. Can we come back to you for advice? We'd been to change the existing Gibraltar template I think and then add one for G'pedia that was actually the same template but with a flag set. Is this within your skill set? Victuallers (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the best one to ask - I know the station template works like that because I happened to be cleaning up a bunch of Madrid and railway articles, but I'm not sure how the coding works. The best people to ask would be whoever's responsible for the WikiProject Military history template - that has gazillions of sub-fields ("aviation", "crusades", "Canadian" etc) which automatically file the page into multiple relevant projects while retaining just a single parent template on the talkpage. See Talk:Battle of Trafalgar, and how a single template has categorised it simultaneously under "Maritime warfare", "British history", "French history", "Spanish history" and "Napoleonic era". I think the people complaining that my suggestion wouldn't address the underlying problem have missed the point - doing it this way would mean Gibraltarpedia could be "wiped" from Wikipedia if that's the final decision, just by removing the relevant parameter from the template, and resurrected if necessary just by re-adding the parameter, all without the absurdity of talkpages which are all tagged both "Gibraltar" and "Gibraltarpedia". Mogism (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Gook (headgear), Mogism!

Wikipedia editor Smd49 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nicely illustrated article!"

To reply, leave a comment on Smd49's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ahem
See this Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aak, sorry about that. I've been running the spellcheck over a lot of German and Spanish-language topics recently (a lot of people without English as a native language have a understandable tendency to make slight spelling mistakes); I thought I'd manually skipped all the "edicion"s, "autor"s etc but that must have slipped through. Mogism (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

November 6 TFA
Following your bright idea, I have nominated Carlson's patrol at the TFA requests page. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - have supported it there. Mogism (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for correcting my spelling, being dyslexic I often make some silly mistakes. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - glad to be of help. Mogism (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite speech
What were you doing with your recent edits to Template:Cite speech? -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing if inserting a blatantly inappropriate image that wasn't on the blacklist would trip the edit filter, if I made a legitimate-looking edit summary and did the malicious insert in two stages. I deliberately chose what seemed like a very low-profile template, and reverted it within a couple of seconds, so I'd be surprised if anyone actually saw the live version. Wikipedia seems to have a worse problem with vandalism than it ever used to - earlier today I reverted a piece of bad vandalism that had been in place for almost two years - and I'm trying to work out how it gets in without tripping all these bots that are supposed to stop this kind of thing happening. I know live templates are a bad place to do this, but testing in a sandbox won't work as the bots don't watch those. The vandalism itself is a carbon-copy of one that was inserted on Facebook a couple of months ago and which took me ages to figure out where it came from (by the time I figured it out someone else had already fixed it in that instance). Mogism (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it was appropriate. I have put two of the three edits through WP:REVDEL. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Redrose64&dir=prev&offset=20121101083806&limit=2&user=Redrose64 Here's the log entry]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lancastrian dialect and accent
I've removed the offending section to the article's talk page, pending a thorough cleanup and some (any?) citations being given. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look. It's in that frustrating grey zone where I can see there's something wrong, but don't know enough to fix it. Mogism (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (Adding) Glad to see people cleaning it up and discussing it. Apologies for lighting this particular firework and then lobbing it to someone else to handle, but I really don't know enough to be any use here. Mogism (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks (but see two threads up - I've been to blame often enough as well) Mogism (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Racehorses
Thanks very much for all the typo-fixing on Thoroughbred racehorses. Most of the mistakes, which seem head-slappingly obvious when someone points them out, are mine.  Tigerboy1966  22:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, and apologies if it's clogging your watchlist! Mogism (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cornish mining
Don't know if User:DuncanHill/Cornwall type localities this is any use to you - it's a list of all the minerals with type localities in Cornwall (got from Mindat), and then the locations. I've also got a reasonable library of related books (though it sounds like you've got quite a good collection yourself) which I'd be happy to consult if there's anything you need from them. They should be listed here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, may well take you up on that at some point. At the moment I'm more concerned with getting at least a couple of paragraphs on each of the significant mines, rather than going into detail (basically just working through the Alison Hodge gazetteers from west to east), although I do want to make a concerted stab at Botallack Mine at some point (mainly because I just bought an enormous book about it and need to justify the purchase).


 * If you know the industry and you're in a position, could you take a look at Bal maiden at some point? I'm debating with myself whether to try to get it through FAC in time for St Piran's Day. (It relies very heavily on Lynne Mayers, but her books are so comprehensive it's unlikely anyone will ever write another significant work on the topic.) Mogism (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting Bal maiden to FAC for St Piran's Day sounds like a great idea. Let me know if you'd like any help with that nearer the time. In the meantime you may want to stop by WP:CORNWALL, if you fancy joining and aiding Cornwall-based articles all help is welcomed! Zangar (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the project watchlisted, but haven't joined - what I do and plan to do is the kind of thing it's easier to do alone than as part of a group, expanding obscure specialist topics, rather than the big topics which work better with a lot of people. I'm not madly keen to get sucked into a position where I feel I ought to have an opinion on all the obscure constitutional disputes. I'll put my name down but am unlikely to be very active. Mogism (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * You're very welcome... Mogism (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cape Cornwall Mine
The DYK project (nominate) 16:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi, re this edit: "designatory" would be an improvement, but "dissignatory" is not. That typo does not seem to be listed at WP:AWB/T, so was it an error from entering an on-the fly spelling correction rather than a problem with AWB?

Thanks anyway for the other corrections! – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was AWB, changing "disi-" to "dissi-" even though "desi-" was needed in that case. It's probably not worth figuring out how to program that in. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry - I should have spotted that but because of the fixes to the two preceding paragraphs it must have been off the bottom of the screen in diff view so it slipped through. Mogism (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

typo
hi. I don't think this edit actually fixed the typo. This isn't a criticism, but I just thought I'd let you know in case you need to fix or improve your script. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh - it fixed the misplaced "a", but didn't change the "exhibitian". I've asked here - hopefully someone who understands how the regex file works in detail will be able to fix it. Mogism (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The word in question isn't "exhibitian" but "exhibation". -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Traveling Wilburys list of band members
Hi Mogism. I notice you've contributed a bit to the Traveling Wilburys band article recently. I've started a discussion on the talk page about which order the band members should be listed in – I'm sure it's an issue that has been raised in the past, but I'd welcome your input if you have time. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My heart says that having Harrison first is correct, as he was to all extents and purposes the leader. My head says that this opens a nasty can of worms, as one could then play the "who was most important" game with every band, and once that floodgate was opened people would spend too much time arguing over whether Roger Waters should be listed first on Pink Floyd. (The Beatles are a special case, since the John-Paul-George-Ringo order is so ingrained in popular culture.) Since there's no right answer, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion - just pick one and stick to it. Mogism (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cape Cornwall Mine
I've left you a question there. Awien (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. "Vineyards in Cornwall" isn't a typo; Cornwall has a fairly significant viticulture industry. Mogism (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gezähe
Hi Mogism. Please help me understand why you are changing "untypical" to "atypical" in this article. Is there something in the original German text I have missed? --Bermicourt (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Untypical" is technically correct (the "typos fixed" edit summary is automatically generated, and I've complained that it's misleading before but it can't be turned off without rewriting the software), but it's an unusual and archaic form which is only generally used in litotes ("it is not typical, but it is not entirely untypical..."). Its synonym "atypical" has the same meaning, but is much, much more widely used. Change it back if you have a strong objection, or if there's a good reason to keep the non-standard form. Mogism (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8564
A less buggy and a bit faster version of AWB is available at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Is anyone ever going to get the auto-updater working? Mogism (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * :) I asked Santa Claus for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Snapshot with rev 8686 is up! It fixes the wikify issue and it is faster than the previous versions. Auto-updater not fixed though. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I raised it at the main talkpage but it was archived unanswered - is there any way to disable the "typos fixed" auto-summary, or replace it with something more neutral like "changes made"? A lot of the "typos" are actually grammar fixes, and people are understandably irritated at seeing their writing characterised as an error when it's actually just a matter of not complying with a style guide. ("Fellow teammate", for instance.) Mogism (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Better ask someone of the typo fixing guys. I am not in it. This edit summary is used for a while now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

8754 is up! http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/AutoWikiBrowser5401_rev8759.zip -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

C3 Picasso
Thank you =D I'm currently doing a peer review so those mistakes are a bit embarassing. Thanks again ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem and glad to be of help - it's way too easy for things to slip through. (I had the embarrassment earlier today of someone fixing an error of mine while I was in the middle of a run of fixing other errors.) Mogism (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's not a bad one! Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping correct errors on R Adams Cowley. Your wonderful and quite helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShockTrauma1 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal involving Giffnock and Whitecraigs
Hi there, I noticed you'd contributed to one of these articles and wondered if you'd like to chip in with your thoughts regarding a merger of Whitecraigs into Giffnock. The discussion is at Talk:Giffnock. Cheers Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I don't know enough to have a useful opinion. Mogism (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey There
There is currently a discussion regarding the lead paragraph on the talk page of Sony Pictures Entertainment. As a previous editor of this article your input would be appreciated. Regards. MisterShiney   ✉    08:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but I agree with your change. That it's a US company is potentially useful to readers who might otherwise assume it's Japanese, as is making it clear that it serves the world and not just the US. Mogism (talk)
 * Better late than never my mum always used to say. lol. MisterShiney    ✉    18:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo corrections
Thanks for sorting out the typos I've been leaving all over the place. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad to be of help. Mogism (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got an eagle eye for typos! The "so called" --Murus (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you and the other AWBers have a sweepstake on how long it will be before I miss an "i" out of division again? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not alone Mogism (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [laugh]Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

KHz on the TV Encryption page
In engineering, a multiplier is typically capitalised and a divisor is written in lower case. This is because writing it all in lower case would mean that MegaHertz (MHz) would effectively appear as mHz as would MilliHertz mHz.This way allows people to see at a glance that it is a multiplier rather than a divisor. Jmccormac (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's completely untrue. The k-for-kilo prefix is invariably in lowercase in the SI system (think kg, km...) and the case has nothing to do with being a multiplier. See Metric prefix for the general rules, and Hertz for the specific case of frequencies. Mogism (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Regarding this:. You'd think after a whole article I'd know how to spell "cruiser", but no... thanks for catching that. Howicus (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm running the AWB spellchecker over as many WW1 articles as I can, in anticipation of a big surge in interest once all the centenaries begin next year. It's astonishing how many minor typos have sneaked through in even the most thoroughly copy-edited pages. Mogism (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Today the missed vowel, tomorrow, Ze Vorld!....;O) Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> cleanup

Thank you for your tireless watch for quality in spelling, correcting a few hundred spelling errors a day, and for sensible advice, such as "Not that hard", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although you really ought to be thanking the much maligned people who make WP:AWB work! It's astonishing how many things slip through. I hope you don't feel I'm picking on you this week - I generally do this by category to try to reduce checking the same page twice, and at the moment I'm in the middle of running it over a big batch of articles on religious buildings and music, which is bringing up a lot of yours. My apologies for clogging your watchlist! Mogism (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, it's not "clogging", - and this week I like anything other than arbcom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea how you got from Wilhelm Victor Alfred Tepe to KFNL (FM) via Ashton Gate Brewery Co (which is an orphan and AFAIK nothing to do with either religious buildings or music)! But thanks anyway. { -- Trevj (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC) PS Aha, the edit summaries (reverting back → reverting) are the same - fair enough! -- Trevj (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was from a general search on "reverting back" and "comprises of", which I do periodically. (Neither is ever grammatically correct, unless "back" is the actual object being reverted.) Mogism (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course! Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Centuries
Actually, I suggest that YOU read WP:CENTURY. I have. The words you quote are not in there at all! However, I bow to the edit, not because of WP:CENTURY, but from what you should have quoted, i.e WP:ORDINAL. (And, personally, I think it's wrong and a sloppy construction, but there you go.) Emeraude (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Baroness Thatcher, not "Baroness Grantham"
Hi there.

From Jimmy Wales user talk page: ''... the majority of Margaret Thatcher's achievements were as Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Roberts or Baroness Grantham, ...''

I have to tell you she was never Baroness Grantham. She was Baroness Thatcher of Grantham, or Baroness Thatcher for short.

Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Community Help
There are a number of people, one of whom has vandalized the Stalking page, as of th 24th, -removing perfectly referenced, material, which was in use on another page word-for word

This material was maliciously vandalized, removed - on the 24th of August, please check the log

- We need some help ~please Dynomitedetails (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghanaian
Thanks for fixing these typos. I had no idea the demonym is actually Ghanaian, I've been saying Ghanian all my life! But I've just looked it up and you're absolutely correct - thanks! Azylber (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was slightly surprised, as "Ghanaian" looks wrong to me. I've done a search-and-replace of those I can find, made slightly more difficult by the fact that there's a town in Pakistan called Ghanian. Mogism (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

tz database
Hi. At this edit and this one (nine months earlier) you "fixed typos" in the tz database article, despite this giant red edit notice: Editnotices/Page/List of tz database time zones, I'm assuming because you use some kind of (semi-) automated editing tool. Is there something more that needs to be done to the page to keep it from being "corrected"? Perhaps the tool should automatically exclude (or at least flag for intervention) any pages with edit notices, since the editor is expected to read them before editing. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - as you say, it's because the WP:AWB edit window automatically focuses on the paragraph where its suggested change is located, so one doesn't see editnotices or notices at the top of the page. If you add anywhere on the page it will prevent AWB from making changes, on  will prevent any script or bot from making changes. Alternatively, Leon [sic] will prevent anyone changing that particular word while not affecting the rest of the article.


 * As I understand it, once Visual Editor goes back to being the default, editnotices are going to be abandoned altogether as neither editnotices nor hidden-text comments display in Visual Editor. The Leon [sic] template is probably the best one to go with, as that makes that particular word impossible to edit in Visual Editor as well as preventing scripts or bots from changing it.


 * Regarding making the script automatically flag pages with editnotices, WT:AWB would be the best place to ask, or User:Magioladitis might know. I would guess that it's harder than it sounds, because there's no standard way of flagging an article - some articles use editnotices, and some use hidden-text comments at the top of the article. Mogism (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

would be suffice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks – that looks like the best solution in this case, since the article will always contain many things that might be incorrect, intentionally. As far as VE not supporting editnotices, thanks for the heads up. This was an important and useful recent feature. Looks like I need to complain. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This bug implies that edit notices are supported in VE. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 11:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just done a test and tried to edit the page in VE, and can confirm that the edit notice does come up in a popup window. Mogism (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Honourary to Honorary.
I believe in a number of the articles in which you have changed this that it should not have been done. Canadian Society of Painters in Water Colour is definitely an article with a strong Canadian tie as are several others in regards to Ontario. I believe MOS:TIES applies here.Naraht (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, the idea that "honourary" is the correct spelling in Canadian English is a myth. Every Canadian style guide I can find on a quick Google-skim (York University, McMaster University, U of Toronto, Correspondence Council of Ontario) concurs with this. Since Canadian English derives from British, Scots, American and French, it seems unlikely to me that Canada would use a form that doesn't exist in Britain, the US or any variant of French. Mogism (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking around Google, I found the following Spelling Quiz answers, so even the Canadian Government agrees with you! Happy editing. :)Naraht (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! Much as it pains me, I think Teddy Roosevelt's drive to remove silent letters from English (up until his presidency the US still had neighbours and ploughs) was one of the most sensible decisions a government ever made, and the UK and Canada would do well to follow. British English (and its Commonwealth descendants) is an ungodly mix of Germanic, French and Latin spellings which no sane person ought to be expected to understand. Mogism (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't dou*b*t that at all. Why should it pain you? Just curious, which of the English speaking countries are you from? :)
 * The original - England itself. It pains me because I find the whole idea of "regional spellings" intensely irritating (I don't think any other language has the same issue) and Roosevelt's reforms are squarely to blame for the differences, but I do believe that in this case the UK, Canada, Australia etc should have followed, and the US should have pressed on to the logical conclusion of full phoneticisation. How much confusion has the letter C alone caused for non-native speakers trying to learn the language? (If you're interested in such things, look at back issues of the Chicago Tribune, which until the 1970s used "reformed spellings" - "frate", "iland", "burocrat" etc - with no apparent ill-effects on their readers, and Australia went so far as to start renaming government departments - "Ministry of Helth" etc - before losing their nerve). Mogism (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So Roosevelt took things from Consistently Wrong to Inconsistently Wrong. :) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Q1cM7_ai4 .Naraht (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may actually be wrong about Roosevelt. I'm sure I read in Theodore Rex that the spelling reforms were down to him, but according to our English-language spelling reform article they were actually down to Noah Webster long before Roosevelt was even born. Mogism (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought I would point out as well.  "Honourary" is widespread and valid in Canadian English, even though "honorary" is more common (as implied by the example used on that government page).  I tend to spell it as "honourary" myself, so you've been hitting several articles I've edited lately. Haven't changed any back since either is valid, but just wanted to point it out.  Cheers! Resolute 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That page also uses "an honorary doctorate" (no u) as its example of correct usage. I don't dispute that "honourary" is used in Canada, but I do dispute that it's valid, any more than the fact that "oftentimes" is regularly used in the US as a synonym for "often", or British shops typically always apostrophise plurals before the s ("three pair's of sock's for two pound's"), mean they're correct usages in their respective countries. As I say above, I can find no Canadian style guide that doesn't say "honorary" is the only appropriate form. The word derives from the French honoraire not the English "honour", so it's not a case of Canada being slow to drop the u (as with honor/honour, armor/armour etc) - it was never there to start with. Mogism (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gage Canadian dictionary (the big thick hardback) doesn't have "honourary" at all, not even as an alternative spelling. Awien (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Gonna chime in here since the u has been removed on The RCR page. According to the Termium Plus site, which is run by the Translation Bureau of Public Works and Government Services Canada, having a "U" in honourary is more than proper, as seen here when one puts in the search term "honourary." Just look at the list on the left side of the page.Superfly94 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And here's what the Canadian Style Writing Guide has to say on the subject, which is the guide used by the Government of Canada, Department of National Defence (written with a 'c') and Canadian Forces. Outing myself as a member of the CF here, which is why I know these links.  I've worked with more than a few bosses who were real sticklers when it came to military writing. Superfly94 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The links to the left on your first link seem to link mostly to explanations that "honorary officer", "honorary consul" etc are the correct spellings.


 * That second link is about "hono(u)r", not "hono(u)rary". The two words aren't cognates - "honorary" comes from the French "honoraire", not the British "honour", and has never contained the letter u. The same Termium link confirms that "honorary" is the only acceptable spelling in Canadian English ("honourary" isn't even recognised by it). As per my comments above, if you can find a single Canadian style guide that doesn't say "honorary" is the only acceptable spelling in current Canadian use, or a single legitimate Canadian dictionary (i.e. not Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary) that includes "honourary" as a legitimate current spelling, I'll reconsider, but I'll be very surprised if you do.


 * The Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence undoubtedly consider "honorary" the correct spelling, as it's the form which is used consistently in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Mogism (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. Just checked on the CF page for HCol listings and you are indeed correct.  Guess I have some work to do on some of our own documents when I go back to work! lol Superfly94 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know most Wikipedia editors think we AWB script-users are a monumental PITA when we clog watchlists with these changes, but we're usually genuinely trying to help.Face-glasses.svg It's so hard getting a change made to the list of changes the AWB script makes, when one does make it onto there there's usually a genuine reason for it. Mogism (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And as we spoke, the BBC posted an article entitled Woody Allen gets honorary Golden Globe

Also, both hum or and hum our --> hum or ous. And both col or and col our --> col or istic. On the other hand, both defen ce and defen se --> defen sive. Moral: Adjectives are horrible little beasts, worse than which only adverbs are. Have nothing whatever to do with them, is my advice. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you edited the article, "Meteorology (Aristotle)" and noticed that it was little information on the article. I find meteorology fascinating, and especially learning about it in the eyes of Aristotle and what he discovered. I think there can be more information to post on that article and I hope I can find some great credited sources to add to that article as well to help improve it for others to read.98.168.170.12 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Canadian spelling
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honourary+ Even Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, recognizes honourary as an acceptable spelling.

See also MacLean's magazine (a Canadian national new magazine that ought to know a thing or two about Canadian spelling) for the article "On Judith Butler's honourary degree from McGill" at http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/05/29/bring-on-the-controversial-convocation-guests/

See also Canadian edition of Huffington Post article text: "Then came the announcement today that McGill University is honouring Judith Butler with an honourary degree." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lauryn-oates/judith-butler-to-be-award_b_3333457.html

See also UBC student newspaper "UBC honourary degrees requested for interned Japanese-Canadian WWII students" at http://ubyssey.ca/news/ubc-honourary-degrees-requested-for-interned-japanese-canadian-wwii-students874/

Find 16 articles in The Canadian Encyclopedia that use the phrase "honourary degree": at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=HomePage&Params=A1

See 82 articles containing the word "honourary" in The Globe and Mail, a Canadian national newspaper, at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/search/?q=honourary

Or seek out dozens of other examples for yourself by simply using Google.

Please revert your edit. Ross Fraser (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I can find 178,000 instances of "begining" in the Wikipedia mainspace alone, but it doesn't mean "begining" is a legitimate spelling in Wikipedia usage. That you've found some publications including a typo isn't grounds to assume the typo is accurate, just grounds to assume that some publications are sloppy when it comes to running spellchecks - there are 75 occurrences of "honourary" on the BBC website, but nobody would dispute that "honorary" is the only accepted spelling in British English. (You may well have found 82 articles in the Globe and Mail that use the spelling "honourary" and 16 articles in the Canadian Encyclopedia that use the term "honourary degree", but you fail to mention that there are 1473 articles in the Globe and Mail using the correct spelling of "honorary", and so many articles in the Canadian Encyclopedia using the correct "honorary degree" that the search function cuts off at 200.)


 * The Canadian Government's official guide to writing English, the Canada Gazette, the Governor General of Canada, the Canadian Department of National Defence, York University Communication Standards, the University of Toronto and McMaster University all disagree with you. In the specific case of Stevie Cameron which sparked this exchange, Vancouver School of Theology, VST's parent body the University of British Columbia and Loyalist College all concur, as did the Governor General of Canada when Cameron was given the C.M., St Thomas University's biography of her, and the Charles Taylor Prize when she served on its jury. I repeat my challenge in the section directly above - find me a single Canadian style guide that says "honourary" is an acceptable spelling. Mogism (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there are only 764 instances of "begining" as seen here - the first search does not put the word in quotes, so the search includes similar words - like begin - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still 682 more than the occurrences of "honourary" in the Globe and Mail that "prove that it's an acceptable spelling in Canada" Mogism (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your request: the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, first published 1998 revised with supplement 2001, page 678:
 * honorary, adj. also honourary [Latin honorarius (as HONOUR)]
 * It is an acceptable Canadian English spelling, because it is in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary! And there is no more authoritative source for correct orthography than a dictionary.  Please revert the edit. I've provided definitive evidence that this spelling is acceptable Canadian English.  Ross Fraser (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you actually reading the posts you're replying to? Vancouver School of Theology award "honorary degrees" not "honourary degrees", Loyalist College award "honorary degrees" not "honourary degrees", and Cameron's own website describes her as having an "Honorary Doctorate of Divinity" from VST and an "Honorary Diploma" from Loyalist College (archive link as her website is currently down). I'm not going to deliberately insert a typo just because you're on some sort of crusade to insert a non-standard spelling against the advice of every single Canadian style guide, and which doesn't appear in a single one of the sources for her being awarded the two honours. Still waiting for you to find a single style guide which says "honourable" is an acceptable spelling. Mogism (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The very first, and frequently overlooked, section of WP:ENGVAR is WP:COMMONALITY "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." If Honourary was the only acceptable form in Canada, then under ENGVAR, that should be used on Canadian articles. However, as Honorary is "common to all varieties of English" then COMMONALITY requires that it is used, even if other spellings exist in Canada. Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:TheBus (Honolulu)
I have opened a request for comment at Talk:TheBus (Honolulu) regarding the vehicle lists in the fleet section. As you have recently edited TheBus (Honolulu), I would like to invite you to add to the discussion. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)