User talk:Tomsalinsky

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh, yeh, OK. It's just that "referencing" is a lazy neologism of a verb which gets used constantly around here. There is nothing wrong with non-jargon like "refers to" rather than "references". You can't exactly explain the subtleties of your argument in the edit box, and it wasn't worth banging a drum on the talk page over. And I doubt it was that "fascinating"...don't be cheeky. There's nothing wrong with improving the linguistic flair around WP, is there? ;) Peeper 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What's "lazy" about it? If it gets used "constantly" doesn't that make it standard? How does insisting that a new(ish) usage is forbidden improve anyone's linguistic flair? I'm a reformed pedant myself and I've found the more I learn about how language actually works (as opposed to parotting arbitrary rules as I used to), the less pedantic I become. Always delighted to discuss these issues, although I reserve the right to be cheeky from time to time. Tomsalinsky 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheeky's fine, evolution is fine, and I was hardly "parotting arbitrary rules", thanks very much - don't assume that everybody believes in the great fiction of linguistic rigidity! Just trying to improve style. I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong. But "referencing" was popping up everywhere, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of rewriting and redrafting. Everything everybody does on here has some element of personal preference, even the bits that you wouldn't call 'pedantry'...surely? Peeper 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What's "lazy" about it? I notice that the phrase "popping up" is also lazily popping up everywhere. Since nothing actually "pops up" on a flat screen or sheet of paper, would you support my removal of that phrase too? Wouldn't "appearing" sound better?

Less cheekily: your removal of "referencing" was justified by it being a noun, not a verb, calling to mind the fiction beloved of linguistic pedants that nouns may not be used as verbs without "damaging" the language. Since vast numbers of modern verbs, none objected to by contemporary pedants, began life as verbs and yet the language remains intact, what's the problem? The only extra information you have provided to justify this choice is that using "referenced" is "lazy". What do you mean by that?

BTW - I'm not looking for a fight. But I do enjoy a debate.

Cheers Tomsalinsky 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, debating is even better than cheeky! Marvellous. Anyway, perhaps I should have decided whether I was removing "referencing" because of frequency or syntax. My lack of clarity has given you a way in, you damnable pedant ;) I am absolutely not in favour of arbitrary rules or linguistic pedantry. But I do think that WP should be a pleasure to read, and not just a repository of hastily-written trivia-dumps about each episode. I'm around to improve Wikipedia, including its written style, and not just to splurge as much as I can possibly remember about the latest episode of Doctor Who with no regard to the quality of expression. And you may be right that using something constantly gives it a certain standard, but it also makes it repetitive, and that's what I was getting at with my edit. Sometimes you have to be a bit reactionary to provoke an interesting debate such as this, rather than the usual sniffy disapproval of the rather territorial Doctor Who fans who refuse to countenance anybody else's scooters on their lawn. (And for what it's worth, I concur that "reference" is used commonly as a verb, but I still think it's ugly and lazy and is part of the current "businessizing" of our vocabulary, which results in the virtual abandonment of perfectly good verbs in favour of such monstrosities as "benchmarking", "sandboxing", "securitising" and, probably from now on, "businessizing". I can see I'm fighting a losing battle. :) Peeper 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For the third time of asking - what's lazy about it? Tomsalinsky 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a trend towards the indiscriminate conversion of any noun into a verb for convenience or a snippet of perceived brevity, rather than using established verbs - hence "referencing" instead of "making a reference to". Peeper 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd dealt with this - a vast number of modern verbs (none objectionable to even the fustiest language pedant) began life as nouns so if such a trend exists, it has existed since English began. Here are some more: guarding, knifing, fishing, telephoning, faxing, elbowing, landing, penning, bottling. Can you sort these into "lazy" and "established" for me so I know which to freely use in future? "Reference" was used as a verb as far back as 1884, so apparently 130 years of usage - and 13.4 million instances on the web (I "Googled" it) - doesn't qualify it as "established". What then is the test that you're applying?

I'd also dispute your claim that the process of "verbing" is indiscriminate. I've never heard anyone say "cabbaging" or "elephanting" or "feedbacking" or "cheeseboarding" or any of the other doubtless hundreds I could dream up if I had the time. Nouns get used as verbs if so doing is useful to speakers and writers of English. You say you don't support linguistic rigidity, but you seem peculiarly rigid here.

So, for the fourth time of asking now: what is "lazy" about writing "referencing" as opposed to your ungainly "making a reference to"? Surely it can't be mere brevity - or "perceived brevity", whatever that is? Would you rather we wrote "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian " instead of the "lazy" alternative "long"? 13.4 million instances of "referencing" on the web (I "Googled" it) suggest that people are using this word quite happily to efficiently communicate a simple idea. Why do you have a problem with it? Tomsalinsky 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, calm down. You make perfectly good points. I did already say that this is a matter of personal preference (as opposed to me having "a problem" with it), so I don't think you need to use the language of "disputing" and "claims". If you are as opposed to rigidity as you say, why are you seeing it in my comments? There's nothing wrong with "verbing" (nice verb, by the way). I just made a small change to avoid repetition, and partly out of my own preference for a slightly less prosaic style (and again I qualify, in my view). My own feeling is that "referencing" is awkward, and looks like a "verbisation" (we're going to town on that one) rather than a commonly-used gerund.


 * I don't agree that "making a reference to" is "ungainly", although it of course depends on the context. It seems I am trying to have an argument about the validity of my personal preference, and you are trying to determine which of our viewpoints on "verbing" is objectively correcter.


 * The real reason for my somewhat hysterical objection is that your personal preference ("I prefer not to use 'reference' as a verb.") is being disguised as unarguable fact ("'Reference' is not a verb."). Tomsalinsky 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted. My bad. This was just the reactionarising I referenced earlier on. As I said, you can't really get the subtleties of an argument into an edit summary. (I should have stuck to declaring that verbing weirds language.) Peeper 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The webpage I got "podiumed" from also cited "verbing weirds language" - but it turns out that Watterson wasn't quite on the money: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/02/26/curbing_the_verbing/


 * While we are nitpicking, though, I'm afraid that I am not sure about your argument that lots of Google hits makes something standard. Setting aside the argument about whether Google should be used as an arbiter or not (on which I am not persuaded either way, but don't want to make any assumptions), such a criterion does not guarantee adherence to WP:TONE, and as long as there are guidelines for WP then they should be the agreed standard. Everything below that is necessary debate.


 * Many Google hits is not a sufficient test, sure, but it's supportive evidence that a word is an accepted part of the language as opposed to a questionable neolgism - "podiumed" for example scores a feeble 4,800 hits, suggesting that it might not quite qualify under WP:TONE - yet. That a word is used very frequently on Wikipedia I think is evidence that it is adhering to WP:TONE. Why do you think the opposite? A very useful word is bound to be used very often. No doubt I could rewrite my articles to exclude the word "and",` but why on earth should I bother? Tomsalinsky 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. Again, you could be right, but I think you risk entering the realm of the circular argument ("circulargumising"?) - that if it's on Wikipedia, the tone must be suitable for Wikipedia? That doesn't sound right to me. It's pretty common to make unsourced, unverifiable statements too, or use weasel words, but they're explicitly against WP policy in spite of their frequency. And a "very useful word" is not necessarily the same as a "formal" one. Peeper 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything un-businesslike about "referencing" and I notice that there exists something called "The Harvard System of Referencing" which suggests that it's well-entrenched in academia. But I think the general point is sound: if on Wikipedia something a) crops up frequently, b) is not generally challenged and c) does not explicitly violate any Wikipedia guidelines, then we can assume that most users of Wikipedia find it acceptable and leave it alone, even if it's not to our taste.
 * (By the way, cabbaging wasn't a great example, but I take the point.
 * Oh dear god! You'll be telling me next that "cheeseboarding" is the act of fornicating in a vat of sour milk.
 * And I've heard "feedbacking" (24,900 Google hits) used too. And I love hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian. Peeper 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (By the way, we seem to be clogging up your talk page - feel free to move to mine, or perform some other technical hocus-pocus if this is a problem!) Peeper 13:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What else am I going to do here? Tomsalinsky 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you could try cheeseboarding, podiumising or elephanting, to reference a few. Peeper 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Might be a bit messy...
 * I'm game if you are. In other news, the Harvard System of Referencing is technically a gerund, rather than a verb, but we probably shouldn't go there or we'll never get out alive. And you'll be pleased to hear that on my other WP adventures, I've rewritten a caption reading "Gordon Brown candidating for Prime Minister." A sign of indiscriminate verbing, possibly? Peeper 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rare entries contest
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rare entries contest, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Marasmusine (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Beletsky
Hey. I noticed what you did re: the article on (Ms Henderson) ==> (Ms Beletsky). Although I accept that you meant well, you went about this in completely the wrong way. (I have since corrected your mistake, which took a few minutes.)

When you want to change the name of an article, you must never copy the content of into and then change the content of into a redirect. When you did this, you broke the article history. I had to delete, revert your conversion of into a redirect, move to , and then restore your deleted content.

Please bear this in mind the next time you wish to change the name of a page. Thank you, and have a good time editing. DS (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)