User talk:Samuel Webster/Archives/2008/December

Nope, not me
Replied at User_talk:Chriswaterguy --Chriswaterguy talk 09:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spelling vandalism
No, what I have edited are changes that reflect the IOC's standards of using straight forward UK English spelling system. I only made changes on pages related to the Olympics. Please do not respell or re-correct everything in another English variant that are not officially utilised by the IOC. This loses accuracy and confuses many people as the articles' spellings will contradict against the actual spelling reflected by the IOC. If you have changed every thing into another English variant, please revert it back to the English adopted by the IOC. Bleedingshoes (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was making corrections mainly to proper names. Note, in addition, the 2008 Olympics using American spelling. Samuel Webster (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know, Bleedingshoes submitted a thread to WT:AIV about this, which I've moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Feel free to comment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In your haste to change "centre" to "center", you renamed the file name of an image, thus causing an image red link. This would be considered vandalism. Please make sure your changes are do not cause problems such as red links (especially images). Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! My bad. Apologies. I'm trying to undo massive spelling vandalism by Bleedingshoes, and I see I was way too hasty myself! Samuel Webster (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What a sec, what image? I don't see any with a red link. Samuel Webster (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, you reverted changes I made to PROPER NAMES. You didn't even bother to investigate which names are correct. Had you done so, you would have discovered that I corrected the names, and you reverted a correction. Why did you do that? Samuel Webster (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism, it's a mistake. Don't go WP:BITEing, the newbies, Cavenba. Bstone (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Samuel Webster, I reverted your change with the image. FYI, see the diff. And seeing as both of us have been here since about the first half of 2006, Bstone, he's about as much of a "newcomer" as me. And with Tianjin Olympic Center Stadium, the correct spelling is "metre", it's a common noun, not a proper one (if you want to get into the matter, technically it should always be "metre" because it is an SI base unit, and SI spells it "metre" not "meter"), unlike "center" in this case. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the image name, and, again, my apologies. About meter: "meter" and "metre" are both correct spellings of the word. What's correct in a particular WP article depends on a number of factors. See the noticeboard discussion of this for an idea of just how complicated this question is! Best wishes, Samuel Webster (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil
Although I think your case for Center is pretty strong on the merits, please do be careful in how you refer to other Wikipedians. IMO a few things you've said have been impediments to others assuming good faith on your part. I fully understand why this is an emotional issue to you (I'm INFP if that means anything) but it's counterproductive to insult other Wikipedians, even implicitly. AFAICT there's no reason to infer that Bleedingshoes is acting in bad faith; I gather you feel differently, and if you can provide links to specific edits you think were wrongly-intentioned that would be very helpful. But regardless, it's important to present them civilly. Regards, PhilipR (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are 100% correct. My encounters with orthographic anti-Americans have infuriated me in the past. The spelling wars started by anti-Americans (I'm referring to cases where it's evident that the motivation is anti-Americanism) are truly outrageous. (There are orthographic anti-Brits as well, to be sure! And they also should be stopped!) And I surely am far too quick to see ill-intent. In many cases, it's simply ignorance of WP:ENGVAR. However, if you look at Bleedingshoes' contributions (I'm thinking primarily of other contributions than those involving the Olympics), it's difficult to come any conclusion other than that this is a person who, on many occasions, has willfully violated WP:ENGVAR. (By the way, I don't see that you've made any comment about proper behavior to Bleedingshoes. Why not? Do you think s/he has behaved like a good WP citizen?) Best wishes, Samuel Webster (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Bleedingshoes acted in good faith in the following regards:


 * Making edits/moves intended to "improve" the article, under the probably mistaken belief that the IOC spelling standard was the relevant one.
 * Bringing the dispute to the attention of an admin rather than engaging in an endless revert war.


 * My biggest constructive suggestion to Bleedingshoes would be to use something like WP:3RD or some less confrontational dispute resolution process rather than to report your reverts at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism.  Vandalism is something completely different, i.e. something malicious.   So that wasn't the most constructive way to handle a good-faith dispute.   But someone, apparently an admin, moved it to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents so implicitly that's a suggestion that the vandalism page wasn't the best place to handle this.


 * OTOH, I don't see any comments by Bleedingshoes like, "Can an admin or other adult step in here?"  I forget the other couple of examples, but that stood out to me as a moderately uncivil comment.  You'll find it easier to build consensus around your ideas if you avoid personalizing disputes. - PhilipR (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the whole situation, and I have to agree with you. (Although you missed a number of insults from Bleedingshoes, but that doesn't matter: two wrongs don't make a right.) I'll make an effort to assume good faith for more than my very limited "one or two rounds", which was my past standard. Best, Samuel Webster (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sadness of Bastardized English
I saw your messages both AN/I and on my talk page. Let me begin with saying that I am NOT anti-American. I am, however, Canadian, and use the Queen's English like almost all of the English-speaking world except for the US.

As those who study language admit, the dropping of Queen's English in the US was primarily a political statement, so the "u" got dropped from odour, and "centre" became "center". Linguistics professors around the world (and the US) call this the "Bastardization of the English Language". That makes me sad. The use of Americanized English by some Canadian newspapers makes me sad.

Please note, I have specified in the AN/I that since en.beijing2008.cn uses Americanized English, then the use of "Center" instead of the IOC standard of "Centre" is correct.

However - a "metre" is a standard unit of measure. A "meter" is something you measure with.

Please only change the words in the article that actually should be changed.

I do not wish to argue languages with you, but would be happy to assist in other issues as required. BMW (drive)  18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you've made me sad! Actually, more frightened than sad: Frightened and sad that such benighted, prejudicial perspectives exist out there among (at least somewhat) literate people.


 * A few corrections. (I don't expect a response, but I want to set the record straight.)


 * - The measuring device is spelled meter in all English dialects. The unit of measurement is spelled meter in some dialects, metre in others. I've recently spent some time studying Wikipedia's guidelines on spelling. They are complicated, to be sure, but I see nothing mandating, or even suggesting, that your prejudicial views be followed.


 * - No serious, or intelligent, linguist would refer to Noah Webster's changes as a "bastardization." Some linguists referred to certain naturally occurring changes are bastardizations. For example, the "War on Z"-spelling of words like realize, polarize, etc. ("realise", "polarise"), which is now prevalent in Ireland, the U.K. and Australia, is sometimes referred to as a bastardization, since it is thought (by some) that it resulted at least partly from the infusion of people from northern Europe, who spell cognate words with "S" (realisieren, German, realisera, Swedish, etc.).


 * Webster's changes, on the other hand, were intentional efforts to create a dialect that was more suitable for use in a country with people from all over the world (this is why American spelling -- though not American punctuation, which is absurdly complicated! -- is best for international use). Part of his initial motivation was patriotic, to be sure, but the principles by which he made his changes involved a desire to create a sensible English dialect. Partly he simply returned the spellings generally preferred (though not exclusively used) towards the end of the 16th century in England (Latin spellings of color, humor, etc.). He made a couple of bad choices (returning the s from the Latin defensa to defense and offense was reasonable idea, but not having done so with all the other words ending in -nce was a silly and confusing oversight). Most of his ideas made sense.


 * Most disturbing about your claims is the use of the term "bastardization" itself. It sounds like you want everything to be "pure"? Applied generally, esp. in the name of the British Empire (or what's left of it), this would lead to chilling changes. And we've heard talk of "purity" before.


 * Do you get sad when people of different races have children together?


 * The British Empire wiped out cultures and languages wholesale, across the globe.


 * And you seem to hope that they continue doing the same thing -- you even want to contribute to this effort. That is very disturbing.


 * I recommend, instead, you try to see what's beautiful about variety. Celebrate difference! (And, if you are sad, consider therapy. I quite sincerely believe you need it.)


 * Samuel Webster (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you were caught up in the heat of the disagreement, and didn't really mean to imply that one of your fellow hard-working Wikipedians is a pro-genocide racist because of a dispute over spelling, right?  If you decide that this comment doesn't reflect well on you, and want to move it off your talk page, you can find instructions for creating a talk archive at WP:ARCHIVE.  Feel free to look at my talk page and archives to see how I use this function to keep old comments while using my talk page for current discussions.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute over spelling? Huh? It was about the use of the term "bastardization" to refer to a culture that deviates from that of the British Empire. Please do some digging before you make accusations! (I know you're trying to help, though, and, I appreciate it!) And, no, I am not going to remove the comment. I'm proud to be a fighter of cultural prejudice. It has no place on WP! Samuel Webster (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear SW: Sorry you had to put up with such hateful silliness. Don't forget: the demographics of Wikipedia are very skewed, so don't get depressed about the state of the world. Justice for All (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I was only depressed briefly, but then I realized exactly what you point out! --Samuel Webster (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel Webster and User:Bwilkins
Hey, I've got a great idea! Since neither of you wants to hear from the other, and since your interactions consist entirely of each putting template warnings on the others's talk pages and deleting them from your own, why not just leave each other alone for a while? Wouldn't that be fun? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought would happen a long time ago! A says something offensive to B (me), B responds, end of dispute. But A just kept on going. But I think we're done now. :) Samuel Webster (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)