User talk:Plokijnu

"Headquartered in"
Hi. "Headquartered in" is perfectly correct and standard English (in both British and American English) and the phrase appears in tens of thousands of WP articles. I sincerely hope that you are not intending to go through large numbers of articles attempting to remove this phrase - there are far better uses of your time in this project. I should add that some of your other grammatical changes are positive and welcome. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree: headquartered is a fairly recent neologism. I can't find it in my British English dictionary. I'm willing to concede your wish that this article retains it, though. Can you re-implement the changes to the article with which you agreed, please? Namely, everything else. Thanks. Plokijnu (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't a word so why would it be in a dictionary? It is very common and very standard English. I'm not sure what you mean by 'recent' but WP is in any case written using present-day English. And a Google News search from the 1980s certainly demonstrates wide useage then: . The comment at the end of my post referred primarily to your edits to other, non-company, articles. I will take another look at the reversions which I just made though and re-add any changes which I may have reverted inadvertently. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "It isn't a word so why would it be in a dictionary?" I'm surprised you should say something that so obviously runs counter to your argument. Well, technically it is a word, and I agree that it is common English in North America and in certain circles in the UK, but it is a neologism nonetheless. I should also point out that it is far more common in contemporary written English to write something like "privately owned company," omitting quite obviously the hyphen. Such omissions occur far more frequently on Wikipedia than "headquartered" does. And one can no doubt find such examples from the early twentieth century. It does not mean, however, that they should not be corrected. Plokijnu (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologise for not mentioning earlier my thanks for you taking the opportunity to look at re-implementing the changes with which you agreed. Plokijnu (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not replying before and also for not going back over my reversions yet. I did fully intend to do both more quickly but got distracted, which is a fault of mine! On the "headquartered in" point, I was unclear earlier, I only meant that "headquartered in" wouldn't necessarily be in the dictionary as it is two words rather than one.


 * However I have now looked in my own hard copy dictionary, which is "The New Oxford Dictionary of English" (2001 edition) - I seldom look at it now because of the internet - and the entry reads as follows:


 * "headquarter- verb [with obj. and adverbial of place] (usu. be headquartered) provide (an organization) with headquarters at a specified location: Unesco is headquartered in Paris." I guess it is now pretty standard wording then, although I accept that it wasn't in the past. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rangoon. Yes, I've looked in a few recently published dictionaries and they all list it. You're right, I should abandon my objection to it. But I do so with resignation and without enthusiasm. Plokijnu (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice Tempate on Buenos Aires–Rosario–Córdoba high-speed railway
Hey Plokijnu, the problem is that the Argentina high-speed railway has been scrapped, thanks to a irresponsible French bank, Bernie Madoff, and the global financial crisis, and yes, the wording of the article has to be updated, furthermore the Chinese have an interest in pursuing either the high speed rail or high performance trains with speeds up to 160 kph, untill we have further info, the Notice Template should be left there. Kindly — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2012 (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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)