User talk:Never give in

Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for using edit summaries, it's a good habit to be in. You don't have to be quite as detailed when you're making minor punctuation changes; e.g., instead of "COMPUTER VIRUS - punctuation - removal of virus", it would suffice to say "punctuation/comma fixes."  Since that's what you are mostly doing, you can use the autocomplete feature of your browser so you don't have to type that explanation in every time.  Thanks, again, and, happy, editing, (hahaha) OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Airzip


A tag has been placed on Airzip, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Airzip and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Woogee (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself.  If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a  tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's . Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page.  Woogee (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Woogee (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you are doing?
Why are you making so many edits which just result in the articles looking like they did before you started? Woogee (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Woogee (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commas
I notice you're going around deleting commas. Thanks. Please be careful though. You deleted a comma in a direct quote on the Software bug article. If you want to fix the comma in the quote, please contact the original author and suggest it to the editor of the next edition, then incorporate that edition in the quote. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you are just removing commas (which are incidentally, not usually errors but just preferences), can you please consolidate your edits, so instead of editing the same article eight times, you edit it once. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to do, however you are doing it wrong. You are mistaking a sub-clause, like this one, for a serial comma. In US writing the serial comma is usual; red, green, and blue. This is not the same as a sub-clause, which is an aside like this one, and you are confusing the two. You can have a comma before an and, and here is one, and that is an example. There are cases for a serial comma, to distinguish two tied items on a list, but you are not targeting them. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you have this backwards: it is in non-American English that the final serial comma is common; American English does not prefer it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I applaud any effort to delete stylistically awkward commas, as unconsidered writing often contains many extraneous commas (and parentheses). However, I'd underline Darrenhusted's request to be careful and distinguish the serial comma, or Oxford comma, from other cases of comma preceding "and". What's more, the Oxford comma is standard in American English, is becoming normal in British English, and Wikipedia norms are to continue with the national style of the original version. But, again, I appreciate your efforts to copyedit. Too few of us worry about good writing style. David Brooks (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please just stop deleting commas that separate clauses, as you did in Fruit. These improve readability, and are recommended by style manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style. Removing them is as pointless as British/American spelling wars. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Such as this edit, "...the first programme to be made by means of a direct collaboration between BBC News, then at Television Centre, and the current affairs department, based some distance away at the Lime Grove Studios." The clauses "then at Television Centre" and "based some distance away at Lime Grove Studios" are sub-clauses, the comma before the 'and' is fine because it holds the two clauses apart. The sentence is "...the first programme to be made by means of a direct collaboration between BBC News and the current affairs department" the locations are sub-clauses each connected to the departments, not a list. The comma did not need to be removed. If you cannot understand the difference then stop making the edits. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The comma before "and" is not merely "fine" in this case, it is absolutely required. The phrase "then at Television Centre" is a parenthetical remark. Consequently, both the comma preceding it and the one following it are necessary.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.