User talk:Wordwright

[Untitled]
Thx for improving the lemma on Emmanuel de Witte. Taksen 09:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

James Cagney edits
Hi there, thanks so much for your edits on this article. I wrote a lot of this after work and my mind often wasn't concentrating properly, and I haven't had time to give it a good copy edit yet (or indeed finish the writing), so any contributions you can make will be gratefully received! --Ged UK (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Enterprise Incident
I removed your personal attack essay from the discussion page of the "The Enterprise Incident" where you refer to the person who reverted your overly worded plot summary a few months back as "UP" aka "Uncivil Person" (see No personal attacks).

Just letting you know, I'm the one who reverted you originally, and yeah I'll agree calling your edits "crap" is out of line, but I wasn't being uncivil. I think writing a 2367-word rant (since you seem fond of counting words) saying that I'm immature, uneducated, and somehow so below your level of humanity is being uncivil. You also seem to assume that only one person wrote everything in that article, so if you know anything about Wikipedia, the first rule is anyone can come here an edit. Therefore, over time, more than one person has contributed to this article in some way. It's not just me. So you've pretty much slapped more than one person in the face here.

It was a while ago, but I just recently found your rant about me reverting you, so to explain why I did... Reason #1, your writing style was way too formal – to try one of your big words here, your "locution" really needs to be toned down. You're supposed to end sentences with periods here on Wikipedia, not semi-colons, which is you read the MOS are suggested not to be used. You use odd wording as well – seriously, who says "woo" anymore? And yes, it is Wikipedia policy to write things in "Simple English" – which means as dumbed down as possible (again see MOS). Not everyone has a PhD in English literature.

Reason #2... your edit was chock full of personal opinions and not written from a neutral point of view (see NPOV). You added in a few places what you think was too drawn out or unnecessary with the episode – which is merely your opinion.

Reason #3... too much verbiage, too much detail, too much "who really gives a flying crap".

That's about it for why I reverted you.

About your essay though, I must confess, I laughed when I read that I failed to "reflect the moral and spiritual tone of this thrilling episode" – I hope you're not serious. First off it's just a TV show and I take no one who sweats over it seriously in the least bit. But I do take offense that you say I'm not be a Star Trek fan. Unless you mean not a fan because I don't live, sleep and eat Trek like some geeks do, then your right I'm not that kind of fan. But I respect the show enough and watch it when it's on, yet I don't have it memorized, so if I say something wrong I don't think I should be crucified for it. If I'm wrong, just freaking fix it. You don't have to bitch me out for it. I have also done a lot for the Trek episodes here on Wikipedia, which were all an even bigger mess before I touched them, so I think I deserve a little credit here.

Anyway, I removed that whole essay from the discussion page because it's inappropriate, and I altered the wording of the article again, this time to what I think reads better. I didn't delete everything you wrote, I just reworded some of it. Dumbed it down and explained things more simply instead of using eccentric verbiage. Hopefully we can reach a compromise on what it should contain. I cut back on what remained over-worded detail and made it less formal. I don't want to get into an edit war over it because Trek to me isn't worth it. Cyberia23 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

September 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Please maintain a civil tone in your edit summaries per WP:CIV, which gives clear direction:

Edit summary dos and don'ts
Remember you can't go back and change them!
 * Do
 * Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly
 * Use neutral language
 * Be calm


 * Don't
 * Make snide comments
 * Make personal remarks about editors
 * Be aggressive

Your edit summary in the Catherine Bell article on March 25, 2013, which states "Act out a role" is not idiomatic English, but idiotic English. Down with idiots who don't know English idiom!" was not in compliance with the Civility policy. Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check out
the most recent discussion at Talk:Doo-wop. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * and don't forget to sign your postings with four of these ~. Carptrash (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Ravens (Doo-Wop group).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ravens (Doo-Wop group).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:The Capris.png
Thanks for uploading File:The Capris.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Allah
Take a look at MOS:ISLAM - we use God, not Allah, with the first mention being God. I'm sure most editors don't know this. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller. You're right—I didn't know that. Thanks!

Your edits to Name
Please see WP:BRD and discuss your proposed changes in a new section of Talk:Name. For one thing, non-human organisms (e.g. horses) may properly be called individuals. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Just plain Bill. I don't quite understand.  Are you saying that in no instance have I given an acceptable reason for a correction?  That, for instance, I am wrong about the difference between "within" and "in," so that, say, you should not have written "in a new section" but "within a new section"?  I don't mind discussing, but I just want to know whether you really do want to dispute my reasons for each and every correction.

I reverted you on War but please don't panic
Hi Wordwright,

I reverted your edits to War but that doesn't mean that they were all bad. I was worried about the size of the change given that it is a very important article. I was also worried that nothing had been discussed on the Talk page. I have started a discussion on Talk:War. I want people more familiar with the article than I am to have a look at what you did and decide what the good and bad bits are. With luck, the discussion will lead to an agreed change better than what any of us could have come up with individually. Maybe it will include quite a lot of your changes and maybe not. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:DanielRigal


 * Hi, DR. Thanks for the heads up. I will add a general note about the problem as I saw it to the TP. I'm not sure what you mean by degrees of familiarity with the article, however—I don't think my changes show that I was unfamiliar with the article.  Instead, in each case of a macro-edit I appealed to criteria that apply generally to a definition, to topical coherence in a paragraph, to topical or thematic development from paragraph to paragraph, etc.  But as I say, I will make that clearer on the TP.


 * As it happens, I was still editing the intro when you reverted, so the sentence fragment you found was not due to my carelessness, just an artifact of my new process of changing only a few things at a time, since I wanted to give a different reason for the change I had planned for that.


 * I imagine that, once you saw the macro edits, to save time you reverted all the edits, but a few of them were changes from the ungrammatical to the grammatical: "theory for" to "theory of," "had" to "has," and since in the section on theories the sub-section titles had an unidiomatic use of adjectives alone, I added "theory" or "theories" so that the modifiers actually modify.  Since they aren't in question, I will revert those. Wordwright (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * - I see you also posted here after reverting Wordwright's edits to War. As he has since replied on that talk page, it would be good to see you follow up on the discussion you started. (But there, not here). And Ww, please don't forget to sign your posts, even on your own talk page. Cheers - wolf  01:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS for section headings
Just as headings do not include a repetition of the article title, sub-headings do not repeat words in the parent heading. See MOS:HEAD. If you have a reason for going against Wikipedia guidelines, kindly explain it, preferably on the article's talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:Just plain Bill


 * There is no statement in the MOS that says that "sub-headings do not repeat words in the parent heading." The closest that comes to it is the statement that a heading should "not   redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer."  As I explained in my justification, adjectives and attributive nouns and noun phrases cannot stand alone in English.  You cannot have a section heading that says nothing but "Psychoanalytic."  My changes do not make the sub-section titles "refer redundantly" to the higher-level section title, but instead make the sub-section titles conform to idiomatic English usage.  I did not go against Wikipedia guidelines.


 * I will say again here that your revert constitutes harassment, and your attempt here to convict me of a violation of guidelines was not made in good faith, because I explained the change on linguistic grounds in the explanation box. It seems that you deliberately put the worst construction on my edit just to call yourself to my attention once more.  I ask you to stop it. Wordwright (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JNW (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:JNW


 * Could you identify the article in question? WP's definition of "research" is very broad, and I do not believe I introduced any material that required documentation, so I will need to see the material and the reason such a judgement was made.  For instance, I take reports about the idiomatic use of English words and phrases not to require documentation in general, but if my recent edits involving the words girl, boy and term, and the expressions city boy, home boy, and country boy are at issue, I would certainly be happy to provide a link to an authoritative dictionary.  So please let me know, and I will make the appropriate adjustments to comply.  Wordwright (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course. All of this is a WP:OR essay . JNW (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted, the entire article is poorly sourced and filled with original research, but that doesn't give one a free pass to add more. JNW (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:JNW


 * I'm still not sure what article you mean—is it the article ""Girl" or the article "Boy"? Or both?  Unless you specify, I really can't understand what you mean. I must say, however, that I did not make any judgement that either article was "poorly sourced and filled with original research," and so did not think that, because that was so, I was free to add more—that isn't reasonable.  So I was not  trying to justify the act that you call "adding original research," I simply said that I acted in good faith under the impression that I did not need to cite a source for an account of an English idiom.  I never make any changes, moreover, without indicating, in the description box, my reasons for a change, and if you consider these reasons, you will see that they have to do with logic.  For instance, I found this sentence:


 * In such terms as 'city boy' or 'home boy', the age notion is at most anachronistic, as they indicate any male who grew up (or by extension lived a long time) in a certain environment.


 * In my explanation I wrote:


 * An anachronism is a representation of a thing of one historical epoch as an element in a historical epoch in which it did not yet exist or was no longer in regular use. A notion cannot be anachronistic; in "city boy" the implication of age usual in "boy" is simply inactive.


 * This is not a statement of my opinion; it is simply a statement about the meaning of the word "anachronism" as part of an attempt to show just why in those expressions "boy" does not connote "child or adolescent." I expect anyone to have had enough experience to know that, if somebody writes a story about the Civil War in which Abraham Lincoln makes a telephone call, that action is an anachronism, because the telephone did not yet exist; or to know that, if in a film set in NY in 2011 you see the WTC in the background, that is an anachronism because the WTC no longer existed after Sept. 11, 2001. Did I really need to provide a source for that explanation?  Did I really need to provide a source for the claim that, in the expression "city boy," the notion of age in "boy" is not an anachronism—that is, it is not an element that exists in one historical epoch, and is out of place because it is represented as existing at a time when historically it did not yet exist or no longer existed?


 * It seems to me that the person who wrote that statement expressed himself poorly because he does not have any experience in explaining why, in certain contexts, one element in what linguists and philosophers call the "connotation" or the "intensional content" of a word is not active. I don't think it would be right to say that his statement constituted original research because he did not cite a source for the claim that "the notion of age is at most anachronistic"; I don't think it would be right to say that my correction constitutes original research because I did not cite a linguist who explains both what an anachronism is, why in general it is not correct to say that some intensional element of a word is anachronistic in a context, why it is correct to say that it is inactive, and why in particular in the expression "city boy" the word "boy" does not connote—this is the technical term—"child" or "adolescent."  I think that, if you are a native English speaker, you are familiar with idioms like, "Boy, am I tired," "He's your boy,"  "Boy toy," and many others in which the word does not connote "child" or "adolescent," so you don't need evidence for the claim that the notion of age is not some sort of anachronism "at most."


 * Similarly, if you are a native English speaker, you must know that "home boy" does not mean that you have grown up in a certain environment—in fact, just a few paragraphs above the expression homeboy is explained this way: "homeboy, originally a male from the same area." If you are a native English speaker, you must know that "city boy" stands in contrast to "country boy," and that in the sentence "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy," the first use of the word "country" denotes a physical environs, but the second denotes a mentality acquired in the social world of the country.  As WP:OR says, that is attributable, just not attributed.  My explanation is not "original research," just an explication of something we all understand implicitly.


 * I say all this just to make clear, again, that I acted in good faith in general, and that I need to know what specific statements are being considered "original research," and I need to know that neither you nor anyone else is not simply unfamiliar with the practice of extemporaneous explications of the usually unstated elements that determine what words or idioms mean. If you aren't familiar with that practice, and if you don't accept a tacit appeal to your intuitions as a native speaker of English, then you will insist on asking for something that really no one can provide without referring you to some complex topic in a science.


 * At any rate, as I say, if you tell me just what article you mean and just what statements, I will be happy to review them, and cite sources where it is reasonable to demand they be provided. And since you think that there is no question but that whichever article you mean is "is poorly sourced and filled with original research," I will review it carefully and delete or flag such statements as necessary—that would obviously be the first improvement, wouldn't it?  Wordwright (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

toxic masculinity
Hi, it might be more effective to raise your questions about the Toxic masculinity article on the article's Talk:Toxic masculinity, rather than adding numerous comments and questions in the article directly. The state of the article now is likely to be confusing for readers, and the public article isn't the place for discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bullseye (target), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Target ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bullseye_%28target%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bullseye_%28target%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoax
wondering if you could take a look at the result of this edit. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Lotje! (or should I say "Gruß Gott"?) I'm not sure which edit you mean—I clicked the thingy next to "Hoax" and was taken to the Revision History page, but the last edit wasn't yours. Do you mean my edit?  If so, what do you mean by its result? Let me know, and I'll take that look. Wordwright (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)