User talk:Stephen G. Brown/Archive 23

Fichtelberg
Hi Stephen. Please help me understand why you have converted this article to US spelling when a) it originally had a mix of both US spelling (meter) and international spelling (metre) and I conformed it to the latter during my cleanup, which is perfectly acceptable since it is not a US-related article. Kind regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. It’s because Fichtelberg used the US spelling from the start. (Metre is not an international spelling, it is the British spelling.) —Stephen (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The latest Oxford Dictionary of English uses "Standard English" unless otherwise stated, i.e. "words... in normal use in both speech and writing everywhere in the world." It goes on to distinguish "regional standards" which include British, US and Canadian, but also others e.g. Indian and SE Asian. These are clearly marked as regionally-specific in the text. The entry for metre/meter is "metre (US meter)" i.e. "metre" is Standard English and "meter" is a US regional spelling.


 * Even if we can find better evidence that "metre" is a purely British regional spelling; this particular article should still use "metre" it because it is an article about a place in the European Union; and the EU uses British English as a rule. As an aside, the metre is an official British and European unit, not a US one, so there is a 3rd argument that "British" spelling should be preferred. Either way, we should really use "metre" here. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A British dictionary declares that British English is Standard English and that American English is a regional standard? American dictionaries disagree with that point of view. British spellings are intra-Commonwealth, not international. Of the 400 million native speakers of English, 300 million of us use U.S. English. But this is neither here nor there. English is not the language of the EU, each country speaks its own language. Germany is not a province of Britain and neither is France. According to WP:ENGVAR, an article about England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland should use the British English standard. An article about Australia uses the Australian standard. Canada uses the Canadian standard. But an article about a country whose language is other than English (such as France or Germany) is in the variety of English that the article was originally written in. As for your other argument, which is also irrelevant, the metric system is alive and well in the U.S. and the meter is one of our units. —Stephen (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is no, it's not a British dictionary; it treats British English as a regional standard, just as it does US English, etc. The preface states "The New Oxford Dictionary of English views the language from the perspective that English is a world language. A network of consultants throughout the English-speaking world has enabled us to ensure excellent coverage of world English, from Canada and the US to the Caribbean, India, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.... The source has been the Oxford English Corpus, a database which provides an extensive picture of current English as an international language." In the introduction it also says "Unless otherwise stated, the words and senses recorded in this dictionary are all part of standard English; that is, they are in normal use in both speech and writing everywhere in the world, at many different levels of formality, ranging from official documents to casual conversation."
 * Turning to your other points: a) I agree it's not a numbers game; b) English is an official EU language and the EU uses British English and c) well done for adopting our metre. Smile! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not a British dictionary, but a Commonwealth dictionary. I’ve never heard of it being used here. I’m sure that in a country of 300,000,000, there must be some Anglophiles who have imported a copy and who use it, but I have not encountered anyone who used it in my long life. We use the American Heritage, the Random House, and Merriam-Webster. Besides the fact that most native English-speakers consider the OED to be a British dictionary, a very good way to tell is if something in the dictionary gives British users the impression that their variant is THE variant, the best variant, or the standard for the language. Since you claim the OED says that "metre" is Standard English and "meter" is a US regional spelling, that means the OED is a British or a Commonwealth dictionary, regardless of its high claims, and it is not an American dictionary and does not represent OUR standard.
 * The EU uses British English because Britain is part of the EU...that does not mean that the other countries in the EU are part of your Commonwealth, and it does not mean that their official languages are English. The French speak and write in French and they use the French Wikipedia, where they are welcome to use any spellings they wish. The Germans speak and write German and they use the German Wikipedia, where they can spell however they like. If an American writes an article about Crewe, it is reasonable to convert it to British spellings, since the people of Crewe speak and write British English and use the English Wikipedia. If an American writes an article about Berlin, the people there use the German Wikipedia and can put their preferred spellings in the German Wikipedia. The Germans do not determine the spellings used in the English Wikipedia, and, since Germany is not an English-speaking country, we do not use the "German variety of English"...we use the variety of English employed by the article’s writer.
 * We did not adopt your meter. We began using the metric system in 1866 and we have moved gradually toward the universal use of the metric system ever since. In manufacturing, adoption of the metric system is almost complete, and the vast majority of manufactured parts are metric. Our military uses the metric system extensively. Jewelry has gone metric. In science and medicine, the metric system is now universal. In American sports, the metric system is widely used. It is mainly in certain common domestic situations that we still use the old American system, such as miles between cities, gallons of gasoline, and measuring the height and weight of people and most things. Even there, the metric system is being adopted, and many highway signs give distances in both miles and kilometers. Some common firearms still use the caliber (e.g., the .22), but many are metric (9 mm). —Stephen (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * EU English is rigidly defined and regularly updated by the European Commission. EU Manual of Style. Woe betide anyone doing overseas work that deviates from this- it is a document we all need on our desktop. All official documents in the EU must be translated into the other languages- so in England we have an official EU-French, etc.


 * It is simply not true that Germans don't use English. Many Universities require that PhDs are written in English to gain worldwide readership. I have a 330 page document on this laptop at the moment that I converting from Denglisch into English.


 * However it really isn't an issue because once consistency has been obtained in an article, that takes priority other policies. WP:MOS Section 2.1 and 2.3 refers. WP:RETAIN. Harder is policing where the article should use Oxford spelling en-GB-oed or the Cambridge variety, and the it comes down to a political decision- whether you read the The Guardian or Murdoch's The Times. I think I will pop down to St Pauls to take a vox pop. :)--ClemRutter (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, the EU uses British English. What’s your point? Why would they ever use American English when America is not an EU parter? How often and in what manner the EU updates their EU English is not relevant because the EU is not relevant to WP:ENGVAR.
 * Yes, yes, everybody in the world uses English. So? It’s another red herring. The language of Germany is not English, it is German. The German Wikipedia is not written in English, it is written in German. Yes, the Germans are adopting and using more English terms than they did when I lived there, but it is still German. The Germans, even the ones that know English, do not determine how English is spelled on English Wikipedia, anymore than I determine how the Germans spell their language on the German Wikipedia.
 * Oxford and Cambridge are also not relevant here, because when an article is being conformed to British spelling, you may spell it as you wish. It is entirely out of my hands and I can’t even offer an opinion on it. To me, they look about the same...jarring. I can’t tell one from the other. —Stephen (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that the OD is a Commonwealth dictionary and statements like "I've never heard of it being used here" or "most native English-speakers consider the OD to be a British dictionary" sound like arguments born out of desperation! Your logic only confirms that the US has its own dictionaries with their own regional spelling, that Americans only use those and ignore the rest of the world (your argument not mine - I have met many worldly-wise US friends). And you seem to find it difficult to believe that England can put together a truly international team to research English globally - well maybe we're humble enough to recognise there is a wider world out there and we're not the only ones using the language we developed. Bottom line is there are good arguments to suggest that European/German regional articles should use either standard English or EU English (= British English where appropriate). There is absolutely no good reason for them to use American English, except the rather weak "I wrote it first". I would have no difficulty with US, Canadian and even, say, South American articles using US English, if that's their local preference. But please afford us Europeans the same respect. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The U.S. has its own dictionaries and its own English spelling, the U.K. has its own dictionaries and its own English spelling. For that matter, Germany and almost all other countries have their own dictionaries and their own spelling. You only want what YOU consider to be standard English, which is British English. Your arguments are rationalization. You can rationalize anything. If you write an article about a town, mountain, language, or river in South America, it will be in your variety of English, and that’s as it should be. To change an article that I write into your own spelling to make it appear that you wrote it is the ultimate disrespect.
 * This is going nowhere. I know what you think and you will think like that until the day you die. WP:ENGVAR says to respect the variety of English that the article was written in. Germany does not belong to England. Let’s drop this subject which is going nowhere. —Stephen (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't understand what I think. Let me explain: Standard English and British English are not the same according to the OD (not me) and the OD classes British English as another regional variation. The US may well have its own dictionaries with only US spelling, that's fine; but please recognise that the OD is international. It may be published in England, but does not favour British English (read my extract of the intro). You may be uncomfortable with its definition of "meter" as a US variation and "metre" as Standard English (not British English), but I would have thought that as someone who claims to be "interested in a wide variety of languages" you would at least be open to hear about the research they have done and their findings rather than dismiss them. I'm certainly willing to change what I think based on credible sources that have done new research - are you? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep saying the same thing. I understand it. It’s crass rationalization. I speak a number of languages, I’ve lived in a lot of countries. That has nothing to do with varieties of English. What the OED calls Standard English is what I call British English. It’s not Cockney, but it’s no less British. If your OED proclaimed Standard American to be the Standard for all English-speakers everywhere, you would tar and feather its editors. You like it because its British and it declares the British superior. As I said, your mind is set and I cannot change how you think. And I don’t even want to try. None of this has anything to do with ENGVAR and I do not consider American English to be a Johnny-come-lately or inferior in any way. Once again, let us drop this pointless topic, it is not going to be resolved here. —Stephen (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to upset you, but I'm clearly not explaining this well! The OD does not equate Standard English with British English, even though you may wish to believe that. They see British English as just another regional variation. Read their intro again: Standard English consists of "words... in normal use in both speech and writing everywhere in the world." They have an international team, including Americans, to establish this. I claim no superiority for the British nor do I believe American English to be inferior - in fact some US words like "dove" for "dived" are more authentic and pre-date later British usage. So we are closer than you think. May I suggest you borrow a copy of the latest OD and read, with an open mind, how they categorise English using the latest technology and scientific methodology. They may not be perfect, but at least they're trying to reach ground truth with a truly global team researching a global language; 99% of which we share in common - which is why you and I can communicate and (mostly) understand each other. Have a nice day (to use a cheery American expression that we Brits have adopted!) --Bermicourt (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You have explained it well enough. We can’t borrow copies of the OED here, nobody here has it. I’m a professional translator and have used thousands of dictionaries, but I have never come across a copy of the OED anywhere. I’ve only heard mention of it. Metre is a recent borrowing from Modern French, which BrE likes to do and AmE does not. The OED claims that metre is Standard English, but it is British English. It’s an arrogant claim. There is a long history of Europeans finding the odd American Indian outlier who is willing to sell his tribe’s lands and rights for a bottle of whiskey, even though the rest of the people did not agree and were not consulted. Finding a couple of Americans out of 300,000,000 who agree to adopt "metre", maybe in exchange for a vacation in England, is not a compelling argument for me. When the OED accepts "meter" as the Standard English form, then I might be convinced. But I know that that won’t happen, because the OED sells its product in the UK, not in the U.S., and the British would not buy it. —Stephen (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of English is by Oxford University Press which publishes its books worldwide including New York and 14 other cities around the world. Its editorial staff includes a team of 18 US English experts as well as those for other regions e.g. India, Scotland, NZ, Canada, Australia, South Africa and the Carribean. Among their specialist consultants are ones for American Indian terms and American Sports terms. You can buy the dictionary from your own amazon.com for around $39. I lost the thread of your American indian argument and why Brits wouldn't buy it, but rating your own opinion of a book you've never seen over that of an international dictionary researched by a team of experts, including Americans, is the more "arrogant claim". Since the dictionary is clearly sold in the US, why not stop rubbishing it and enhance your library, your professional understanding and knowledge by getting a copy? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don’t know why you say "clearly" sold in the U.S. I’ve seen nothing to make me think that anyone here buys it. I’ve been around a long time and I have never come across one. I’m retired now, but in earlier days I occasionally had to hire British translators to translate some material for the British market. In those days, even our British translators didn’t have it. There was no Amazon then, and importing it was difficult and expensive, and it wasn’t really a translator’s tool anyway. Our British translators used American bilingual dictionaries and converted to BrE by memory. Anyway, I know of no one who has ever bought it. Outside of a quick perusal, I can’t imagine what use I could put it to. Besides the fact that British spellings generally cannot be used here (perhaps in the theater, where sometimes they go over well). One of the biggest uses we make of an English dictionary is looking up hyphenation, but British hyphenation is very different and we can’t use it at all. Me importing the OED would be the same as you importing an Indian elephant to keep in your back yard...a nice conversation starter, but what else could you ever do with it?
 * Oxford University Press puts out some bilingual dictionaries, such as the Oxford Portuguese Dictionary, a nice Russian dictionary, a Spanish grammar, and so on. Those are useful and they sell a lot of them here. We’ve bought Oxford bilingual dictionaries and grammars for a long time...just not the OED. —Stephen (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa! The Oxford English Dictionary (20 Volume Set) (Vols 1-20) @ 990US$ is not a book that you buy unless you are a library authority- and even then I have listened to arguments in committee whether one should be held at each branch library- or whether there should be just one held in the reference section of the main library. It is not a translators tool but a work of reference and scholarship, Now I haven't used the OED on-line but could  as the UK library services do run online access- ... I'ĺl stop being general, but I am a resident in Medway so I have a Medway online ticket- but as I trust them more I have also got a Manchester City Libraries online card. These are open to anyone resident in the UK (or with the use of a UK address)-- this restriction is obviously a commercial scope restriction imposed by the publishers. Residence is not checked- there is no address registration system  like the Einwohnermeldeamt or the Mairie in the UK ... ..so the only limitation is the moral dilemma between conscience and the greater good!
 * The biggest danger with translating from British English is the use of irony this guide is actually quite accurate. Enough for now-- gives us a ring from Gatwick and I'll put the coffee on. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually we may have confused ourselves. The book I'm talking about is the one volume Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed. (2010) - let's call it the ODE - not the Oxford English Dictionary or OED which is the famous multi-volume set from the same stable. Buy the ODE online in the States here. Incidentally they also have a "New Oxford American Dictionary" which claims to have "the most comprehensive and accurate coverage of American English available. The dictionary draws on the two-billion-word Oxford English Corpus and the unrivaled citation files of the world-renowned Oxford English Dictionary to provide the most accurate and richly descriptive picture of American English ever offered in any dictionary." I might get it! --Bermicourt (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried a few years ago to use the OED online when we were having a discussion about British hyphenation, but, as I recall, it required some sort of subscription with monthly or yearly premiums. Most of the American dictionaries, such as the American Heritage, are free online.
 * And no, I had not heard about either the Oxford Dictionary of English or the New Oxford American Dictionary. The latter in particular sounds interesting. I might think about the ODE if I can get Amazon to let me look inside at a few pages. —Stephen (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Luhya
Stephen G. Brown. You keep reverting my additions on the Luhya pages, and you have the audacity to say that what I add constitutes 'vandalism.' Why?

I know why - because what you think you know has suddenly been turned upside down. I actually know African history - first hand. I am a lexicologist, ethnologist and archaelogist, specifically one who is classically trained in Egyptology. You suppose that I do not know what I am writing about. It's ok, wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of ANY kind of information in the academic world anyway. So any additions here, are simply a waste of time to those whoa ctually READ and understand world history.

Besides that, there are thousands of sources. I am not interested in any more additions to this site. You have made reverting my presentations your sole responsibility. Go ahead. Have fun. I'm out of wikipedia. So don't bother replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washmuaria (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what you are referring to. Please provide a diff. —Stephen (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Naaltsoos Ayiilaa
So yeah, it's up for deletion. Could you put that phrase into wiktionary? The main point here is for people to find the real meaning of it, I don't really care where. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I’ve given it a shot at Naaltsoos Ayiilaa. Not sure if it will survive. I agree that it is needed, but it’s a matter of properly writing and formatting it. Generally, nonexistent terms, names of specific people (such as "George Washington"), and terms that are the sum of their parts (such as "interesting movie") are not acceptable. I did manage to make a page for разблюто, a nonexistent Russian word. Well, not nonexistent, but certainly not Russian...it was coined by Americans for use in an American movie, so it turned into a sort of hoax. Anyway, it’s there, so we’ll see what happens. They tend to be quick on the (delete) trigger, and most admins there have a decidedly deletionist attitude. —Stephen (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Spellings on Skyscraper
Hi Stephen, I invite you to comment on Talk:Skyscraper. However, I am not encouraged that you have been asked about this kind of thing on at least 5 previous occasions above. Astronaut (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jericho
Please find out how to spell'aqueduct' and stop making erroneous corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.236.53 (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is the name of an image file. It cannot be changed. Do not try to correct it. —Stephen (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RFPP
Hi, I think you forgot to sign a request at Requests for page protection. Could you fix it? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I copied and pasted an old RFPP, and when I removed my old signature and date, I forgot to put the new one. Done. —Stephen (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have blocked the other user warring with you on Louvre Palace for 24 hours. However, I recommend you look more closely at WP:ENGVAR -- your opponent in this dispute happens to be correct. Not only is the topic a European topic which suggests UK spelling is appropriate, but the earliest version of the article that uses any spelling that can be identified as either UK or US, uses UK spelling (the word "centre"). Therefore, that is the spelling that should be retained. I recommend you leave the article in the UK spelling form. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not find the early UK usage, but I didn’t check every page. European topics do not belong to the British. Europe is not part of GB. If an American writes an article about France or Germany using American spelling, it belongs in American spelling under ENGVAR. ENGVAR does not grant Europe to the British, nor does it grant South America to the Americans, or Indonesia and the Philippines to Australia. —Stephen (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was, the article was originally written using UK spelling. The second-ever edit in the article's history is the first edit that used a definitive spelling, and that was a UK spelling. Before you edit-war on ENGVAR again, you need to do the proper due diligence and investigate the earliest versions of the article that reveal a regional spelling style. Had I done that myself before I took administrative action, I would have blocked you instead of the other guy, but not having done so, I erred in favor of the more experienced editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Messages
I’m no longer active on this wiki. Please leave any messages at nv:Choyoołʼįįhí bichʼįʼ yáshtiʼ:Stephen G. Brown. —Stephen (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne
Hi Stephen G. Brown! Can you translate and create this page? I need so much your help! Can be a sample phrase, that after I will put photos and references. Thanks in advanced. Vitor Mazuco  Talk! 00:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Zlatiborian
Why you dissagree with Zlatiborian language? unsigned comment by User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић 17:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method
And you moved User:Pass a Method's username and associated user pages to User:North Atlanticist Usonian, why? What at all makes you think that was appropriate to do? All it does it makes you look like Pass a Method, or connected to him in some way. Flyer22 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I struck those two lines because I forgot that you are a WP:Administrator. My mind was temporarily under the impression that you are new, and blocked out my checking the earliest date of your account.

Anyway, I take it that you got a message from Pass a Method asking him to change his username? How was it appropriate for you to then do so, given that he is a problematic WP:Sockpuppet and otherwise problematic editor? Flyer22 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Administrator Adjwilley, who has significant experience with just how problematic Pass a Method is, can shed some light on how appropriate these name moves were. And, for the record, yes, these name moves just registered to me. If I noticed them before, they didn't really click in my head until now. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I got a request from Pass a Method on en.wiktionary asking for a username change. It was a routine request as far as I could tell. That was over two months ago. If I recall correctly, I checked his SUL info and it looked normal. Are you saying that his account has been flagged and restricted from having a username change? I have never heard of anything like that. Where do you post that kind of information when you want to bar a user from getting a namechange? —Stephen (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Edit conflict: Your moving his username came days after this matter; clearly, Pass a Method was watching, and thinks that documentation of his WP:Sockpuppeting should be less easy to locate. Your username moves made it so that his contributions do not show up as Pass a Method; so, for example, his contributions don't show up at Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method/Archive when clicking on the contributions link there for the Pass a Method account, except for the diff links. Whatever reason he gave to you for moving his username, such as a privacy reason, I'm certain that it was simply him trying to evade scrutiny once again. Bbb23, John Carter, DoRD, Ponyo, DeltaQuad and Mike V -- other WP:Administrators and/or WP:CheckUsers who are familiar with Pass a Method and/or looked into the Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppeting cases -- do you mind offering your opinions on this matter? And if the Pass a Method account had been indefinitely blocked at the time of these username moves, which it should have been, would these moves have been as likely to be made? Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don’t know anything about that matter you mentioned. I don’t know what you mean by my opinion on the matter. On Wiktionary, if we get a user who is using socks without permission, we block his account and all of the socks. If Pass a method’s account had been indefinitely blocked, I would have noticed that and refused his request. —Stephen (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't meant anything about your opinion on the matter until now; above, I was asking for others' opinions (which is why I linked their usernames). And by "until now," I mean that I agree with you on blocking those who have violated the WP:Sockpuppet policy. I pointed you to Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method/Archive, which documents Pass a Method having violated that policy more than once. Given that, and that he'd activated WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to enforce a self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020, his account should have long been indefinitely blocked. And it frustrates me that it has not yet been indefinitely blocked. As seen in the Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet archives, I asked that his account be indefinitely blocked. WP:Administrators thinking/stating that there is no need to indefinitely block him because of that self-imposed 2020 WP:Wikibreak is wholly insufficient, and this name change matter shows why. That stated, I did have his user page tagged as a WP:Sockpuppet before you made the username moves. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * His account was blocked once for WP:Sockpuppeting, and that was by King of Hearts on April 10, 2014; since that time, his WP:Sockpuppet accounts have been blocked but not the master account (Pass a Method). That master account should be indefinitely blocked, not only so that Pass a Method no longer has any power over it, unless it's user page/talk page access, but also so that the account is logged as a WP:Sockpuppet master that should remain blocked...unless he successfully appeals via WP:Standard offer. Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Tagging his name as a WP:Sockpuppet did not appear in his SUL info, if I recall correctly. I don’t know how tagging his name is supposed to reach admins in other wikis. If this were Wiktionary, we would have blocked his account as soon as the sockpuppet offence was discovered. If he has taken a voluntary leave of absense for five years, his account should be blocked. In 2020, he can ask that it be unblocked, or he could open a new account. I don’t see how you can notify admins on other wikis about something like this unless you block the account. My suggestion is to block his account until 2020. —Stephen (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that by "SUL info," you mean Unified login (WP:SUL). So you are stating that you moved his username across Wikis because of SUL info? Or was his request specific about having a name change across Wikis? Did his Wikipedia block log show up in the SUL info? And if it did, you made the username moves because he was not indefinitely blocked? As for wiktionary.org, I see that he has been blocked a few times there as well. I'd rather that he be indefinitely blocked here at the English Wikipedia, but not before his account is moved back to the Pass a Method username here at the English Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I granted his request on the basis of his statement that: "I'm planning on creating a global account. Since i'm most active on wiktionary, my first step would be to do that here." I always check the SUL info for both the original name and the new name. Since this was over two months ago, I don’t remember anything specific about the SUL info, but I saw nother there that alarmed me. If you want the username change to be reversed, I can do that. —Stephen (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking again at his SUL info, I see that he has not made any edits on any wiki since this username change was made. All of his edits were made before the namechange. —Stephen (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then there is a reasonable chance that this might have been some sort of attempt to game the system as per WP:GAME. I can understand how you might have done a global username change without going into a lot of possibly extraordinary research. But, under the circumstances you indicated above, I also have some questions why the request might have been made. Barring the (possible, but unlikely) death of that editor, or other form of incapacity in the short term, I cannot see any reason for the change to have been made other than questionable ones. Under the circumstances, I think that maybe, in the short term, changing the name back on this particular wiki might be reasonable, and also, maybe, filing some sort of request at the appropriate policy or guideline to discuss this matter and see what if any changes might be reasonable to avoid such circumstances in the future. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don’t have any idea about his reasons for the change beyond what he stated. If I reverse the name change, it is a global change. I don’t know of a way to change it only on this one wiki, and if the account is ever to be used again, I think it would be confusing to have the account under different names on different wikis. So just to be clear, you are requesting that I reverse the name change now, is that right? I want to make sure we’re on the same page with this. —Stephen (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it would have to be a global name change, which I didn't know, I guess I probably wouldn't request a universal reversal of the name change, because the editor's user rights weren't apparently restricted on other WMF sites like this one and they would have a reasonable right to change their names on sites they are actively participating in. I can wish that were not the case, but wishing doesn't mean much in circumstances like this one. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you could just monitor his activity in the SUL info from time to time. As I said, he has not been active on any wiki since Sept. 30, 2014, so it appears that he is keeping his word about taking an extended break. You can see at a glance if there is ever any new activity. —Stephen (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gee, you learn something new every day. I had no idea anyone except an en.wiki bureaucrat could change a user name. Apparently, Stephen, who is not even an admin here (lucky him) has something called a global-rename right so he can affect user names here without being a crat. I didn't see anywhere in the policy where it mentions any of this. As an aside, I also didn't see anything in the policy that specifically precludes a problematic editor from changing his user name, although there is the wonderful weasel word "discretion". I don't know about all the wikis, but the user, whatever his name is, hasn't edited here since the change. In fact, he hasn't edited here since February of this year, months before the change. I, too, see no reason for the name change except to avoid scrutiny. The issue is whether that's enough to reverse it. I leave that to others to decide. As an aside to Stephen, sock masters are not always indefinitely blocked here. Puppets almost always are. Pass a method, a master, was not indefinitely blocked. There's a fair amount of discretion in the admin and/or SPI clerk in the decision on how to long to block a master. BTW, nice meeting you, Stephen.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I queried editors of Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention to weigh in on this matter, instead of asking for opinions at WP:ANI. But WP:ANI might be my next step on this matter. I don't see how the name change has to be a global one. And considering how problematic Pass a Method is, and is still affecting the Pass a Method account, I maintain that this account should be moved back to the Pass a Method username and indefinitely blocked. I'm convinced that this username move is one of Pass a Method's "avoid scrutiny" tactics, just like his "self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020" matter was. When he activated that self-imposed WP:Wikibreak, it was so that he could get around his topic ban and avoid scrutiny by editing as a different account (an account that I caught as the WP:Sockpuppet it was/is). Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I struck my commentary above that Stephen G. Brown is a WP:Administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In 2005 and 2006 we had a severe problem with a persistent sockmaster named EddieSegoura who was carrying out an enormous amount of crosswiki vandalism, including impersonating other editors, admins, and even Jimmy Wales (all while jumping from computer to computer in a New York library to hide his tracks), and ever since that time we have been unforgiving with dishonest sockpuppetry on en.wiktionary and we block them indefinitely at the first sign of trouble.
 * As for the name change, the software does not have any place to list specific wikis. I have to enter the old name, the new name, the reason, whether or not to move the user pages, and whether or not to suppress redirects. That’s it. When I hit the submit button, it changes the name globally.
 * I don’t know why Pass a method chose to rename his account at that time. Perhaps he was thinking that he would still be active on other wikis than the en.wiki. That would be my guess. It appears that there is disagreement about whether we have the right to revert this name now. I don’t want to revert it based only on your lone request. I would like to have a clear decision by your admins. I still think that you should just block his account here if you are suspicious of Pass a method’s intentions. But if your admins decide they want it reversed, just let me know and I will revert the names globally. —Stephen (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because I decided to take a break from this matter to let others weigh in without more WP:Too long, didn't read interference, I just read your latest reply on this matter above. As is clear, out of all of the WP:Administrators and/or WP:CheckUsers I pinged above, only two weighed in. In other words, no one hardly cares about this topic. After all, out of all of these people, other than Adjwilley and John Carter, I am the only one who "has to" continually interact with Pass a Method when he edits problematically on Wikipedia, whether he's editing as Pass a Method or as a WP:Sockpuppet. And like I noted here, Bbb23 had some run-ins with him, and has blocked him before. As for others weighing in, I'll go to WP:ANI with this matter now, and see if anyone there cares to weigh in on this case. There must be a way for a WP:Administrator to reverse the name change without affecting the other Wikis. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Taken to WP:ANI, as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the discussion, I have found out that it is possible to do a local rename without affecting other Wikis. However, I as a global renamer cannot do it. I don’t have access to the old software that works on a local level. You would have to put in a request to the metawiki Stewards at Steward_requests/Username_changes. They’re the only ones who can still do a local rename. —Stephen (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So what is your opinion on what was stated at WP:ANI? It's now seen here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865. It's ridiculous to me that only one WP:Administrator -- Euryalus -- there commented on that matter. But like I stated above, it's not like they've had the frustrating interactions I've had with Pass a Method and "have to" put up with him every time he pops back up. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Very little interest in the matter, it seems. I think it is illogical to deliberately make anyone have a different username on one wiki. I think the matter should be dropped. If Pass a Method causes any further problems, I think you should block him indefinitely. In my opinion, blocking for a certain time, then indefinitely if necessary, should be the first options considered. —Stephen (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, saw the ping. En-wiki admins seem a bit thin on the ground lately, so apologies for the limited ANI response. There was a medium-length discussion on issues with global renaming here but the endpoint was simply to accept its inevitability. As presently constituted, it does open doors for problematic editors to escape some scrutiny. And annoyingly, there's nothing much in the rename documentation that addresses the risk - it seems not to have even been contemplated.


 * So what next? We might raise this the conversation at WP:BN to get more expert opinions than mine. But as the previous bureaucrat thread indicates, it is unclear if anything can or will be done to change the policy, or to address this specific or the general concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Stephen G. Brown, I am not a WP:Administrator. I don't have the power to block Pass a Method. And if I were one, I would not have blocked him; this is because, given our past tempestuous history, that would make me WP:Involved. However, what is illogical to me is that the Pass a Method account is not indefinitely blocked here at Wikipedia, and now, because of this obvious username move he employed to avoid scrutiny, he can't be blocked under that username. I don't care how it is done, but he should be named Pass a Method here on Wikipedia, and that user account should be indefinitely blocked. Editors turning a blind eye on this matter is silly to me. I reiterate that the Pass a Method account should have been indefinitely blocked by a WP:Administrator when I brought up the matter during his WP:Sockpuppet cases. If any of them had done that, it's very likely that this rename would not have happened. That is, if his indefinitely blocked status would have shown up to you in the SUL info. I mention indefinite blocking in this case because I don't see why Pass a Method deserves any more chances. So now we're at the point that WP:Administrators and WP:CheckUsers are not doing a thing about this obvious "Ha, ha, I'm avoiding scrutiny" mess. I should not have to wait for Pass a Method to WP:Sockpuppet again to get something done about this, especially since that account is now under a new name. He is surely WP:Sockpuppeting again anyway.


 * Euryalus, thanks for your help. No need to ping me to this talk page, however, since Stephen G. Brown's talk page is currently on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi all. Stephen G. Brown, are you OK with moving the user back to their previous username? It will notify them so they can edit from their new (old) username after the move, and it would probably be best for the sake of transparency here.
 * I have no idea why enwiki wouldn't block the sockmaster account. When looking at Special:CentralAuth, there isn't some magical *drama* indicator beside a specific wiki if that user has been involved in shenanigans there. The best we can do is check block logs on projects where they are most active, but in general, if they are not currently blocked anywhere then we (stewards and global renamers) will action the request.
 * Account naming is now done from a global perspective, so I am unwilling to locally revert the rename on enwiki - if anything that would make it easier for him to avoid detection elsewhere. Hopefully Stephen G. Brown will be OK with reverting the rename globally, which will solve this problem. the policies you are looking for are at Global rename policy and Global renamers :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 07:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did check the wikis for evidence of blocking before I did the rename (it was not blocked anywhere). It appears that User:Pass a method was an editor in good standing and that he had the right to request a rename. I can revert the rename, but it is troubling that the only requests for the revert come from one or two editors on this one wiki who are not admins. I don’t see any signs of mischief with the new name (there has been no activity at all since the rename) and I don’t see why one name would be any easier to monitor than another name (since both names are known). It just strikes me that if the admins here don’t feel that the account deserves to be blocked, even for a month or two, then this user surely has the right to have his rename. If en.wikipedia could make a more authoritative request to revert the name, from several local administrators, I would feel easier about it, but there does not appear to be any interest in the matter. As I suggested to Flyer22, why don’t we just wait and see what happens. If he starts causing problems, that would be the time to block him (a much better solution if he really is a problem editor). Maybe you could put the matter to a vote at your Village pump. Otherwise, it feels a lot like vigilantism to me. —Stephen (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how it is "troubling that the only requests for the revert come from one or two editors on this one wiki who are not admins." We are talking about a highly problematic editor here -- Pass a Method. And you are acting as though the fact that he was not indefinitely blocked means that he is a possibly good editor and/or deserves another chance. It does not. The main reason that his account was not indefinitely blocked is because of the aforementioned "self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020" aspect. Not only has he been highly problematic on Wikipedia, but he has also been highly problematic on Wiktionary, which I already linked to above in my "14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)" post. Bbb23 already stated above that master accounts are not always indefinitely blocked. That stated, it is very likely that had Pass a Method not thrown that "self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020" quirk in, and then WP:Sockpuppeted and got repeatedly caught WP:Sockpuppeting, the Pass a Method account would have been indefinitely blocked. Ponyo, who also seems to want to cut Pass a Method slack, told me on his talk page (User talk:Ponyo) that the reason he did not indefinitely block Pass a Method is because of that self-imposed WP:Wikibreak. Surely, that self-imposed WP:Wikibreak is why others are taking a laid back approach to this matter, as if the self-imposed WP:Wikibreak solves everything. It does not. If Pass a Method wants to edit Wikipedia freely again, it should be through the proper course -- not WP:Sockpuppeting or waiting until 2020 to edit again as though that makes his editing Wikipedia all fine and dandy. Pass a Method was a highly problematic editor before his WP:Sockpuppeting, and I can ping (WP:Echo) various editors here to this talk page attesting to that. His WP:Sockpuppeting was only so that he could continue being a nuisance, away from the scrutiny.


 * You speak of WP:Administrators. Bbb23 is a WP:Administrator, knows that Pass a Method is problematic, has blocked Pass a Method before, and has expressed above that this name change seems like Pass a Method is attempting to avoid scrutiny. John Carter is a former WP:Administrator, also has first-hand experience with just how problematic Pass a Method is, and has clearly indicated that the rename is Pass a Method avoiding scrutiny. Euryalus is a WP:Administrator, does not have past experience with Pass a Method, but has expressed that the rename is problematic. And yet you are implying that my wanting it very clear to editors on Wikipedia that the Pass a Method account is a highly problematic editor/WP:Sockpuppet master (though not a very good one, since he can never fool me) is simply me engaging in vigilantism? I guess that my catching all sorts of WP:Sockpuppets and reverting WP:Vandalism is simply vigilantism. I'm so wrong to do any of that. So wrong to want to keep these highly problematic editors off Wikipedia. Yes, I am tired of dealing with Pass a Method. That doesn't mean that I'm simply being biased by stating that his username should remain Pass a Method on Wikipedia and that the account should be indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia. I think that Euryalus would be willing to indefinitely block the Pass a Method account. If WP:Administrator Adjwilley didn't feel that blocking Pass a Method would make him WP:Involved, I think that he would have indefinitely blocked Pass a Method by now. How much Pass a Method troublemaking should I point to before you get the point that I am not talking about a good editor when I speak of Pass a Method? How many WP:Administrators commenting negatively on his editing is it going to take for you to get the point on that? Why do you think that WP:Administrators' words on this matter carry more weight? You told me where to go to get the username changed back to Pass a Method on Wikipedia; I did, as seen here, and now you are wavering...for reasons that I cannot understand. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "a highly problematic editor here"... but that is something that only you and the admins of en.wiki know. I don’t know anything about that. All I know is what I’ve already said above. "acting as though the fact that he was not indefinitely blocked means that he is a possibly good editor"... all I know about him is that he is not blocked on any wiki. That puts him and you on equal footing as far as I know. He could just as well request that I rename you. You’re making an assumption that I know what you know and that my experiences with Pass a method are like yours. I don’t. I don’t know of anything that Pass a method has done wrong except for what you have told me. You and the admins of en.wikipedia are the ones who know him and you (including your admins) should take responsibility for the request that you are making. As I said above, your admins do not seem to show any interest in this, and I don’t see the logic of what you are asking. Why can’t you get a consensus opinion on this from your admins? "name change seems like Pass a Method is attempting to avoid scrutiny"... as I said above, I do not see that at all. You know his old name and his new name, how is he going to avoid scrutiny? You keep saying it, but I think it’s a non sequitur. "I guess that my catching all sorts of WP:Sockpuppets and reverting WP:Vandalism"... I don’t know anything about that, or about you. I only have your statements about Pass a method and your statements about yourself. I imagine that Pass a method would say the opposite. That’s why all of this argument that you keep making to me is irrelevant. It’s just hearsay. I can’t judge the veracity or importance of any of it. The only people who know are the editors and admins of en.wikipedia, which is why I keep telling you that if you want to do this, you have to show that you have the agreement of the en.wikipedia admins. You drop a lot of names, but I don’t remember reading that any of them stated that they are admins and that they want the rename to be reverted. You should have a vote somewhere so that we can see if the en.wikipedia admins agree with you. —Stephen (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm here because again I was pinged. First, this is only the second comment I've made to this thread. Second, from skimming the thread, it looks like a typical Wikipedia going-around-in-circles discussion. Third, I don't believe I've said - at least not here - that PAM's requested name change was to avoid scrutiny. Fourth, I've already mentioned that sock masters are not always indefinitely blocked on this wiki. Fifth, the only part of the policy for renaming that might be problematic in this instance is the following bullet point: "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct." I don't know how global renamers are supposed to evaluate this point. Stephen says he didn't see anything to indicate that the user was in bad standing, but I don't know what that entails. Obviously, PAM's history here was problematic. Finally, as a practical matter, I'm not sure why Flyer22 is making such a big deal out of this given that there's been no editing by PAM since the rename (I assume that's still true).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, although I am not at all sure, considering the global username was changed after the last known edit, the point you raise may be valid, either as an attempt to conceal misconduct on the basis of perhaps attempting in the future further misconduct, or perhaps simply to put a prettier gravestone on the potentially intentionally terminated editing of that party. I honestly don't know that there is any reason to think the editor has necessarily returned yet. However, I regret to say that the new name, North Atlanticist Usonian, is not necessarily consistent with the editor's prior location, which as far as I remember seems to have been from Britain (User:Flyer22 probably knows the details better than me there). If this is an indication that the editor has relocated to perhaps North America, which would make it even harder to identify sockpuppets on its own, this could rather easily be a further attempt at obfuscation. It'll be hard enough to identify any potential sockpuppets as is, should there ever be any. A geography change, if there has been one, would make it even harder. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "it looks like a typical Wikipedia going-around-in-circles discussion"... yes, that is what it is. We are wasting a lot of time and getting nowhere. I can’t see how this rename could conceivably conceal misconduct, since his old name redirects to his new name, and both names are known here. All of his edits show up in the contributions of his new name. In my own experience with sockpupperers, they will make new identities quickly as the need arises. If PAM wants to obfuscate, he must create a new username that is not linked to his older names. It is possible, even likely, that he is editing regularly here, but under a new username that none of you are aware of yet. His old username, Pass a Method, is dead in the water ... he can’t use it. His more recent username North Atlanticist Usonian is already well known, and all of his old edits appear under this name. If he starts using this username, it will be immediately recognized. There is no way for him to conceal anything by having this rename. He probably already has another username that nobody knows about.
 * We are wasting a lot of time on something that I am convinced is pointless. If the name stays, you know what it is. If it is reverted, it changes nothing. I repeat that I do not understand what the benefit will be if the name is reverted. I think it makes no difference whatsoever. If PAM wants to conceal his identity and continue sockpuppeting, his route is by creating new usernames. Requesting renames will not help him in that regard. If he is really as bad as Flyer22 says he is, you should just block him. Blocking his current username is no different than reverting and then blocking his old username. If he is as bad as Flyer22 says, I would be surprised if he ever uses this username again. Why would he?
 * Flyer22, I only have your claims. If I asked PAM, I’m sure he would say that he is wonderful and that you are the problem. Only editors who have been involved with this matter really know what is going on. I don’t know anything about PAM or you, and I’m not in a position to judge either of you. You need to get a vote of your admins, and if you can show that your admins want this revert, I can do it ... but it will have no effect whatsoever. Whether he uses PAM or Usonian, the name is known and his old edits are attached to the name. Even if you block him, he can just create a new identity. I think you’re beating a dead horse, and I don’t see that the admins of en.wikipedia are interested in this matter. —Stephen (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, you stated in your above "16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)" post "I, too, see no reason for the name change except to avoid scrutiny." I stated in my above "11:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)" post that you "ha[v]e expressed ... that this name change seems like Pass a Method is attempting to avoid scrutiny." That is consistent with your post. But, still, you are not sure why I'm supposedly making a big deal out of this. It's troubling to me to state or imply that because Pass a Method has not been editing Wikipedia or Wiktionary (which I don't at all believe is true in the case of his editing Wikipedia), the name change is okay; this is especially problematic to me given that he can resume editing Wikipedia in 2020 as though he's an occasionally problematic editor but is a net benefit, as though he's only WP:Sockpuppeted once, as though his WP:Sockpuppeting has only been a minor infraction. Yes, let's let all the indefinitely blocked editors change their usernames; there's no problem with that at all. What's that? Pass a Method was not indefinitely blocked? So that means that the name change was perfectly fine? No, that's not what it means. What it means is that Pass a Method has consistently gamed the system, starting with that self-imposed 2020 Wikibreak (that was not even a Wikibreak), and editors are letting him get away with it. I know how Pass a Method works, better than any editor on Wikipedia. In his WP:Sockpuppet cases, look at some of the sneaky techniques he employed to make sure that he was not caught. And yet I caught him, more than once. Essentially stating that I need to catch him doing something wrong one more time before his username is returned to the Pass a Method title and/or before he is indefinitely blocked makes no sense to me. I'm doing what I can to make sure that it is less easy for this editor to resume editing Wikipedia, and others are making it easier for him to resume editing Wikipedia. Giving him another chance that is wholeheartedly undeserved. Instead of being indefinitely blocked as the mess of an editor he is, he can continue editing Wikipedia as Pass a Method or as North Atlanticist Usonian. Stephen G. Brown made a mistake, and is unwilling to correct that mistake. I'll make sure to mark this incident and discussion as one of the many failures of Wikipedia.


 * Ajraddatz, thank you for your time. And, John Carter, thanks again for trying to help. Because of your past interactions with Pass a Method, you're the only editor here weighing in on this discussion who completely understands where I am coming from on this matter. I suppose that Adjwilley, who has just as much experience as you do with Pass a Method, is not weighing in on this because he's tired of commenting on Pass a Method. Whatever the case, as long as Pass a Method is able to access Wikipedia, he will never be done with Wikipedia.


 * Stephen G. Brown, you stated "[h]is old username, Pass a Method, is dead in the water ... he can’t use it. His more recent username North Atlanticist Usonian is already well known." No, it is not well known. That is why he changed it. Many Wikipedia editors have made username changes to avoid scrutiny. One benefit of doing so is that they are not recognized when editing in a familiar space. Those who recognize the username as problematic are less likely to check on their edits or revert them under that new username...unless they know that editor is the same editor. Very experienced Wikipedia editors know this. You only have my claims regarding how problematic Pass a Method is? What???? No, you have Pass a Method's editing history, including his topic ban and Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method/Archive. You have his problematic Wiktionary editing. It was not a ghost acting up in the way he's repeatedly acted up, as is well documented by the complaints in his Wikipedia talk page edit history, now mostly in his archives. Editors can claim I am problematic all that they want to, including by pointing to my block log (a block log matter that was already cleared up by a WP:CheckUser and by that same WP:CheckUser and other WP:Administrators in the case of an unjustified 2014 block earlier this year), but my editing speaks for itself (as is also currently noted by others on my user talk page). But, hey, stick to what you think is right, even in the face of valid evidence that it is not...right? Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, I couldn't bring myself to read your entire wall of text, so I'll just make a few comments and then bow out of this. First, you're right, I did say it, although I also said that in and of itself that doesn't mean the name change should be reversed. In any event, my apologies for not reading my own post more carefully. Second, I think you should at a minimum drop the issue on Stephen's talk page. If you want to go to an administrative forum (I haven't checked whether you've already done that) and argue in favor of reversal, fine. Finally, at this point, if I had to "vote" as an admin what to do, I'd vote against a reversal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you apparently "couldn't bring [yourself] to read [my] entire wall of text," then you apparently missed that I did "drop the issue on Stephen's talk page" page in that supposed wall of text that you supposedly couldn't bring yourself to read. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And you aren't aware that I took this matter to WP:ANI, even though you frequent WP:ANI, and I pinged you in the discussion that took place there? Sure, you aren't. But nice way to protect the supposed rights of a highly problematic editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're correct that I missed all that. The only thing you're sort of incorrect about is I don't "frequent" WP:ANI all that much (I used to but got tired of it). I could also do without the sarcasm. This is my final comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if anything you've stated above has to do with me recently disagreeing with your odd interpretation of a WP:REVERT and therefore WP:3RR. When I disagreed there in that editor's block case, I'd hoped that you wouldn't take the matter as disrespectful and then let that affect future interactions with me. And, hey, maybe you haven't. Either way, if I had been blocked for what that editor was blocked for, I would have gotten that overturned similar to how my 2014 block was overturned. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Last comment here and then will stop clogging up Stephen's talk page.

It seems to me the problem with global renaming is the risk of users who, skirting close to a block for POV-pushing or tendentious editing, simply take a rename and go their merry way, prolonging their disruptive activities and forcing the community to spot them all over again and closely observe the new identity. It may also assist editors seeking to avoid topic bans, because the global rename page is poorly watched and the editor's new name won't be associated with the old one in the topic ban list.

However the answer is not to insist that local admins block users so they can't benefit from a global rename. First, en-wiki rarely indef-blocks sockmasters - to now do otherwise would a policy change without local consensus forced into place by a global policy for which no consensus was required. Second, editors nearing an admin or community restriction might get renamed before a block is applied, thereby escaping sanctions to begin disrupting anew. Third, in this specific case it would be inappropriate to retrospectively block PAM - that was a matter for the admin who resolved the SPI at the time.

Instead: as a suggestion, when a problematic user is renamed the matter might be raised at ANI or similar, and if consensus exists to preserve the old name then that old name is locally restored. That way (in this case) PAM might be called anything they like on most wikis, but remain PAM here on -en because the community has objected to the specific rename.

Just passing thoughts. Will discuss further if required, but perhaps that should be on a different page. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Euryalus, thanks again for weighing in. I also thank John Carter for weighing in on the page that Stephen G. Brown pointed us to above (his "21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)" post), even though it's turned out that Stephen G. Brown has the final say on this Pass a Method topic. I agree that it's time to stop posting to this talk page about this, since Stephen G. Brown has made up his mind on the matter and will apparently be sticking with that. But as for indefinitely blocking the main accounts of WP:Sockpuppet masters, it's not rare that the English Wikipedia does that. They do it often; I've seen it for years. Sure, a first time-offense is commonly given a second chance. But it's routine for the main account of any repeat offender to have that account indefinitely blocked, if they've been caught WP:Sockpuppeting more than twice at least; sometimes if they've been caught WP:Sockpuppeting twice. If Wikipedia did not do that, then it would mean that it's hardly doing anything to protect itself from WP:Sockpuppets. WP:Sockpuppet masters are routinely indefinitely blocked, and then tagged as the WP:Sockpuppet masters that they are to protect the community; the indefinite block lets the community know that those editors shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, why that's the case, and to keep a lookout for more WP:Sockpuppeting from that person. Above, I was not "insist[ing] that local admins block users so they can't benefit from a global rename." I was insisting that Pass a Method be renamed Pass a Method because it is that name that is associated with his problematic editing, and that he then be indefinitely blocked as the WP:Sockpuppet master that he is. I've stated something like this before: On Wikipedia, because it's the username that we see to recognize editors, those usernames are like faces, and a rename is like a face change. Of course...a Wikipedia username is very much associated with a person. And, of course, many editors seek to avoid scrutiny by editing without that username or discarding that username, as is made clear at that the WP:Sockpuppet page and at the WP:Clean start page. As shown in this recent WP:Sockpuppet case that Bbb23 was involved in, usernames matter an awful lot in terms of WP:Sockpuppetry. Stephen G. Brown is acting as though proof of an editor's bad behavior doesn't matter and is only hearsay, that one has to interact with a problematic editor to know that the editor is problematic, and that the opinions of WP:Administrators necessarily matter more than the opinions of non-WP:Administrators in this case. He is welcome to his beliefs, of course, but I cannot get on board with those beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Side note: Euryalus clarified a part of what he meant in his "06:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)" post above, seen here on my talk page. And to add on to my "15:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)" comment, anyone who clicks on the North Atlanticist Usonian username will see the WP:Sockpuppet tag I added to that account unless it is removed, but, as currently seen, that tag no longer points to Pass a Method's sockpuppeting because his WP:Sockpuppeting archives are currently associated with the Pass a Method username...not the North Atlanticist Usonian username. So I am likely to do something to remedy that. And if a person wants to check the history of an article by using the "Edits by user" option to see if or how much Pass a Method has edited that article (which is what I did when collecting evidence against Pass a Method for WP:Sockpuppeting), that history will come up empty regardless because contributions are no longer incorporated into that username; editors will instead have to type in "North Atlanticist Usonian." But what of the editors who don't know of Pass a Method's username change? I suppose I will have to alert them to it. Sigh. Anyway, I am dropping all of this for now. I might look into getting the name reversed in the future, however, and, if I do, I will go about that more efficiently than this attempt. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is time to drop it. This discussion is officially closed. —Stephen (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Conioselinum scopulorum has been accepted
 Conioselinum scopulorum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! (t) Josve05a  (c) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Stephen_G._Brown help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Conioselinum scopulorum has been accepted
 Conioselinum scopulorum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! (t) Josve05a  (c) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Stephen_G._Brown help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Cases: Final 'for'? (non-benefactive)
Dear Stephen, thank you for your substantial contribution to the Wikipedia pages on grammatical cases. Case (and prepositions) is a topic I've been enthusiastic about for almost twenty years.

I would be grateful if you could answer this question of mine, and perhaps supply an article in the Wikipedia: in sentences like "They're heading for Alpha", "This train is bound for Beta", "I'm looking/searching for Gamma", "Now for something completely different", for seems to express direction (?) or intention (?) (rather than destination, as to does). Could "for" correspond to the "final" case in other languages? The WP article states: "... used for marking final cause ("for a house"). Semitic languages had that case, but all of them lost it ..." Well, as I see it, 'cause' is the opposite of 'final', so the only possible interpretation would be something like 'for a good cause, specifically, for the house'. Quite implausible.

More generally ... is it my impression, or the case marked by/translatable with non-benefactive "for" actually passes mostly undetected in the literature, as if the label "final case" stood for something very unusual across languages (as unusual and peculiar as the sociative case, for example), so very different from 'direction/intention'?

Thank you for your time and trouble, and please keep up the good work. Viktor Laszlo (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you’re talking about the causal-final case. It means "for the purpose of", "for the reason that", and it is also used for price to be paid for goods. In Hungarian, the causal-final case ending is -ért: elküldtem a boltba kenyérért (for bread, for the purpose of bread).
 * You might be correct that "heading for" and "is bound for" express direction. In Russian, this would be "в" + accusative (to Alpha, to Beta). In Spanish, it would be "a" + accusative (to Alpha, to Beta). In Portuguese, "para" + accusative (to Alpha, to Beta). But "looking/searching for" is a little different, and in Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese, the construction would be different from those used for "heading for" and "is bound for" (just the simple accusative, usually without a preposition).
 * "Now for something completely different" is again different from any of the other examples.
 * I do not see that any of these examples could be considered causal-final case. I don’t think that these examples in Hungarian would take the -ért ending. —Stephen (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Stephen, thank you for your prompt reply. My point is this. I don't consider myself a generativist at all, but I often act like one. I assume there is one grammar, and this is realized in different ways in different languages.


 * My interpretation of language is this: whether what surfaces is a preposition, a noun ending, or zero, I take semantics to be the same across languages, as a postulate. So I take for granted that the same semantic nuances can be expressed in Samoan as in Nivkh. I'm interested in the logico-semantic values of sentence constituents, irrespective of how they are realized in different languages. Call me mad, but I postulate that the sociative case in Without a dime, she wound up in her mother-in-law's house at Christmas with her kids does exist in every language, though it may surface in very different ways or not at all.


 * I like to think of my approaches as intrinsically practical. If I know in advance that "3 dollars" is not an accusative (just because in English and Italian it happens to surface with no preposition preceding it), perhaps I'll manage to spare myself a few pages of ramblings from an improvized grammarian that wonders why "3 dollars" can't easily be made the subject of the passivized version of It cost me 3 dollars. It was the question that was wrong. Syntacticians shouldn't judge from appearances.
 * In other words, preposition or no preposition, ending or no ending, linguists that talk about "morphosyntax" (instead of "syntax") refuse to believe that for the house is three words. True, for can occur at the end of a sentence... Still, I only see one word in for the house. Would you agree that endings are postpositions in Hungarian as they are in Japanese?
 * By transitivity, in an ideal world, "for the bread" (from your example) should be called "causal-final" in English. And English should be considered to have cases (like all other languages, for that matter).


 * Lots of prepositions take the accusative across languages especially when they express movement. In Italian, no accusative (on the surface?).
 * However, I can say "Vado alla stazione" (TO the station = my destination) vs. "Scusi, per la stazione?" (asking for directions)!
 * In conclusion, were you to consider for the station in English as one word with three morphs, how would you label it? directive case? propositive? anhelative? (not an attempt at being humorous -- just a way to make my point clearer).
 * Thank you. Viktor Laszlo (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand what you mean. Yes, the case endings in Turkic and Uralic languages appear to have come from earlier postpositions. I think it is not so clear where the Indo-European case endings came from. With analytical languages such as English that use prepositions or postpositions exclusively, and no noun cases, no one ever bothers with trying to classify the pre-/postpositions the way they do with case endings. It would be possible to do it, of course, but I’m not sure this method would be well received by grammarians and school teachers. The Athabaskan languages have myriad postpositions (I have never tried to count them all), and if each one were to be described the way we do case endings, Navajo would have a large number of cases. Besides these, Athabaskan languages also have a lot of postpositions that are only used as verb prefixes, and it would be tricky to described the Navajo verbs that contain postpositional prefixes in terms of noun cases. Languages such as Navajo, Yup’ik, and Ojibwe are exceedingly verb heavy, and there are few nouns. Their verbs are already complex, with numerous aspects (momentane, continuative, durative, conclusive, repetitive, semelfactive, diversative, reversative, seriative, conative, transitional, cursive) and modes (imperfective, perfective, usitative, iterative, progressive, future, optative), as well as three numbers and four persons (regularly, with another five persons possible when needed ... if you add the complexities of noun case to the postpositional prefixes, the verbs start to be terrifying. But yes, it would be possible to do it, I think. —Stephen (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this the appropriate "place" for a talk with so many questions? I tried sending you a private message through the WP but, evidently, this is the only way it works. And I'm lucky you replied in the first place. (Didn't happen elsewhere)
 * Please give me an example of a postposition that is only used as a verb prefix. I'm not at all familiar with North American languages, so I would need a sentence with glosses (or just the glosses and the translation, please), in a way as to at least enable me to understand your point. I no longer have access to university books (and I'm still alive, somehow), so all I can rely on is Google, I guess.
 * A postposition is supposed to occur exclusively after a noun or an adjective, isn't it? that's how it works in Japanese. If you say a particle only comes before a verb, wouldn't it be logical to conclude it's not a postp. but only a prefix?
 * Anyway, you've given me a ton of food for thought, I'm afraid I need a break. Viktor Laszlo (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Athabaskan postpositions usually include a pronoun, even if used after a noun, as in ił (with): shił (with me), nił (with you), bił (with him/her/it/them). The verbal postposition ba- (the "b" representing the 3rd-person pronoun, and the 1st-person form would be sha-) means "to" or "on" (on a temporary or loan basis): tʼááłáʼí béeso shaʼníʼaah ("lend me a dollar", or literally: one dollar [to me temporarily]-[it]-[you]-[cause a single roundish bulky object to move from hand to hand] (imperfective mode, singular subject); nihitóshjeeh bada’siitʼą́ ("we lent him our barrel", or literally: our-barrel [to him temporarily]-[plural subject]-[it]-[we]-[caused a single roundish bulky object to move from hand to hand] (perfective mode, plural subject). —Stephen (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stephen
Hi Stephen, I work for the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs and am trying to get the department involved in improving content about New Mexico on WIkipedia. I haven't found any active Wikipedians in NM. I am at a training workshop in Maryland about leading Wikipedia workshops and am looking at Navajo Wikipedia, where it looks like you are an admin. Do you live in the region? I'm just trying to see what kind of people and resources we could put together. Please let me know if you are around or have any ideas for me. Mimi.roberts (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I live in Texas. The other admin, ‎Seb az86556, lives in Arizona. I know a number of Navajo who live in NM, but they are not Wikipedians to my knowledge. On Facebook, the Navajo language group has over 13,000 members, including a lot from NM, but I don’t encounter them much on Wikipedia. Native Innovation Inc., with Jay Manyreboots, has been developing the Diné keyboard app for iPhone, iPad, Android, etc., as well as a Diné Bizaad mobile dictonary iOS App. See video in Navajo language. I don’t know if any of this will be helpful to you.
 * We would love to have more and better content about Yootó Hahoodzo on Navajo Wikipedia. —Stephen (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Promethean KUNO tablets now come with the Diné Bizaad keyboard for 1:1 Classrooms. The cost is similar to that of an iPad. —Stephen (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Anup to User:Anup (usurp)
Hi, I do not really understand why did you rename/move my user account from 'Anup' to 'Anup (usurp)'? I'm not even sure how does it qualify for being usurped? I was the owner of SUL and had same username on multiple Wikimedia projects. May you please explain your this move? Anupmehra - Let's talk!  20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, it appears to be originate form here. Let me explain this, I had User:IndianWikipedian account and I renamed it to User:Anup on multiple projects back in March this year. I've had User:Anup on multiple projects, also the SUL. The account on Wiktionary was unattached and I don't why but wanted it make a part of my SUL. So, I logged in my previous account 'IndianWikipedian' and made a usurpation request on Wiktionary (as I did on other projects to unify my accounts). That's it. Now I'm not sure, why 'User:Anup' was renamed (globally?) to 'Anup (usurp)'? I didn't ask to rename 'User:Anup'. If it could not be possible for me to have User:Anup on Wikitionary, let it be that away. Bring me back 'User:Anup'. Thank you! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the software was recently changed from local rename to global rename. As I explained, there was already an old account with the name you want, and it has to be usurped. The first step in usurping the name required moving it to a different name, usually that name followed by (usurp). However, the new global-rename software cannot handle local unattached accounts, it seems, so this old original username must be moved using a special program. We have made a request for this. Please have patience. —Stephen (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the local name has been moved and Anup (usurp) is back to Anup again. —Stephen (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cadence
You're not going to do readers any favors with an ambiguous term like "cadence" in a linguistics article. Saying it's a quote doesn't matter at all since it's not in quotes.

Really odd choice for a revert, given your recent comments on Wiktionary. You know ownership and personal authority doesn't work as well here on Wikipedia, right?

Peter Isotalo 08:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you are the owner of Wikipedia? Intonation is nonsense and twaddle in that sentence. Navajo is a tone language, but this reference is not about tone or intonation...it refers to the cadence of speech, the rate at which the sounds are uttered. Navajo is usually spoken more slowly than English is (it is possible to speak it very rapidly, but a slow cadence is usual). Navajo also has intonation, but it is very different from English intonation, and Navajo intonation cannot be said to have a speed. There are only two tones, and the high tones come when they come. The faster the cadence, the less intonation, and at a very fast cadence, Navajo intonation almost disappears.
 * That line refers to a specific quote in the book Inside Dazzling Mountains. In his book Inside Dazzling Mountains: Southwest Native Verbal Arts, on page 162, David L. Kozak writes:

I have retained the glottal stop vowel initial as a reminder of its presence. In my experience, Navajo cadence is slower than English and pauses tend to be longer in Navajo than in English. —Stephen (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stating the obvious and avoiding technical language is a thing here. It works just as well in communication between users.
 * If it's nonsense and twaddle, the link is still to intonation (linguistics), which would merely be confusing. The dictionary definitions of cadence point to intonation in terms of linguistics, even if it has the sense of "beat" or "flow". That's how I perceived it, but "cadence" is unnecessarily ambiguous and subjective in a linguistic article. I haven't read much about speech tempo, but it seems to be what you're describing.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not put the link there; I don’t know who did. The link is wrong, it is about cadence (speech tempo). Intonation is up and down, tones. English has a lot of intonation (prosody), but Navajo has only a little, that being the two tones (plus infrequently a rising tone or falling tone on long vowels). The tones may change quickly or slowly, depending on the words used. This is about Navajo cadence, or speech tempo. Navajo normally has a slow cadence, even slower than English. It is the opposite of French cadence, which is very rapid. I have been studying Navajo language for over seven years and I know well the difference between the cadence of Navajo speech and the intonation. —Stephen (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speech tempo it is, then. Not saying you aren't qualified to differentiate the two. Just a matter of clarity. Words with more "flavor" aren't always the most encyclopedic.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Navajo people, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BIA and Fort Defiance. 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) 09:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nemzag's projects
Nemzag, please store your edits at User talk:Nemzag. I really do not have any need for them here, and the massive amount of them, plus the unending daily edits and re-edits, are drowning my talk page. I’m sure that they will have a good home at —Stephen (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Steph‑en, man, and ktʰang vor all & mainly vor yôr pati‑ênth, take care, good day... Don't vor‑geth to tell to pro‑kraph‑ma‑tôr to cor‑rect the size of Arabic‑script dis‑play template in Wiktionary Êngël‑ish... And again sorry vor what have done my "brothers in re‑ligion" even if I don't know tʰem at all... ΘϷΕΝΑΝΑΤΕΣΟΣ (dôr.) ΤϷΕΝΑΝΑΘΕΣΟΣ (att.) ΑΟΛΙΕΥϷΟΛϜ ΜΑΝΓΖΕΔΙ / طشانانثس أعليهوسعلۋ مانجزهدي (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

font question
Hi, Stephë‑enë,

In English Wikipedia the script template for Arabic still not work well, this size is minus‑cule, can you contact the administrator in charge of this...

I reported this bug before in your wall (3 September but you erased it). Since nothing was done to correct this display problem... Is near unreadable you can't allow this Arabic is used by 1.600.000.000 humans... Correct this please...

Thank... emailed comment from User:Nemzag 07:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don’t know which admins would be in charge of this. You should never report any bug on my wall, because Wikipedia admins do not watch my page. If you report anything on my talk page, nobody will ever see it. You might ask Mahmudmasri. I see that Mahmudmasri has edited . If he cannot help you, I have no idea who you should contact. —Stephen (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok... 87.66.217.198 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)