User talk:NEDOCHAN: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Hey grammar guru: can you take a look at this sentence from Dead Putting Society to check my grammar re: plural possessives ending (i.e., apostrophe S or S apostrophe)?

At the tournament, Bart and Todd make the finals but decide to call it a draw, forcing Homer and Ned to mow in their wives' Sunday best.

Thanks! You rock. 🎸 Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a delicious conundrum. The first bit is easy. each others' lawns should be "each other's lawn" - 'each other' refers to one person (the other person, either Homer or Flanders - not both) and each person has one lawn, so "each other" (Homer or Ned) mows "each other's" "lawn" (either Ned's lawn or Flandereses :) "lawn").

The next bit is harder. As it stands, it says that their wives share a single "Sunday best". They could also have many wives each. I have thought about it and it would be boring to go through the options, though I am happy to if you don't like my solution. I won't edit the page directly.

forcing Homer and Ned to mow in each of their wife's Sunday best.

or

'in their respective wife's Sunday best' (not as good as respective shows order, which isn't required).

I have had the sentence on my user page about being happy to discuss grammar for as long as I can remember (including IP days). Finally. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stop laughing at unintentionally implying Ned and Homer are polygamists (though Ned could easily be mistaken for a Mormon if he were a tea-totaler). Will edit the page accordingly. Thanks for your help. See you at the grammar rodeo in Canada! Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really really can’t stand editors like yourself. You don’t have ability but you do lord it over others, as if you do. I’m not going to tell you the article - because that will draw undue attention to myself. (So to annoy you I’ll keep quiet). But let’s just say I rewrote the entire article single handily, removing junk, gave it structure, and added references. After doing what I considered a good job, along come parasites like yourself who move in with the intention, I guess of taking my work as your own. The irony being is that before an uncredited editor like myself does any hard work - all material in the article is apparently OK and non debatable; it doesn’t need reverting or deleting. Anyway I work my magic only to find that the said parasites (like you) descend on to an article - and now- material that was uncontested before is now completely wrong. I reinstate material that was there before (remember all I did was format and grammar (nothing more) but now - in the context of a rewritten article- you come along and side with the moron who removed it.

Laughable. You’re laughable. The material had been there for a long time. And you never had a problem with it. But you did when I put it back.

I seriously hate people like you.

You don’t contribute anything but when someone makes improvement you take it as your own and then ruin it.

Vomit 81.159.165.171 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence contains a grammatical error. I am unable to take your polemic seriously even without knowing to which edits you refer. Learn about reflexive pronouns, identify your specific concerns and then come back to me without personal attacks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so keen on preserving your work then I would suggest opening an account.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comment! A couple people have mentioned edit summaries to me but a lot of the time I don't think the edits need summation. I'm mostly just mucking around with pages for boxers and mixed martial artists. It would take me longer sometimes to describe the edit I made than to make the edit. I'll leave a note if I think it could be a bit controversial, and if someone has a problem with the edit and reverts I won't be going to and fro without explanation, but this is just a hobby for me so I'm not worried about being perfect or doing everything strictly by the book if you know what I mean. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your change here, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Semicolons states: "Semicolons are used in addition to commas to separate items in a listing, when commas alone would result in confusion." The sentence in question on the Gordon Ramsey article is one of the two of the following:

"These are: The Narrow in Limehouse, which opened in March 2007, the Devonshire in Chiswick, which opened in October 2007 and The Warrington in Maida Vale, which opened in February 2008."

"These are: The Narrow in Limehouse, which opened in March 2007; the Devonshire in Chiswick, which opened in October 2007; and The Warrington in Maida Vale, which opened in February 2008."

The former was the original; the latter was my change. I changed the list delimiter from commas to semi-colons because the list items themselves contain commas. This causes confusion in the list and therefore, per the link above (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Semicolons), the list should use semi-colons.

You also removed a serial comma here in the same article. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Serial_commas, where it states: "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent", either with or without the serial comma is acceptable, as long as the entire article is consistent.

Also, please read Help:Edit summary in relation to your edit summaries in your two changes I linked above regarding best practices for edit summaries. Thank you. Useight (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up. The first point is that semicolons should be used when it might result in confusion. In this instance, there is nothing remotely confusing.

The second point about internal consistency is also true. So why did you make the edit when it was consistent?NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry re reading this it comes across as more abrupt than intended. Please compare:

Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts, San Francisco, California, Singapore, and Millbank, London, England

with

The Narrow in Limehouse, which opened in March 2007, the Devonshire in Chiswick, which opened in October 2007 and The Warrington in Maida Vale, which opened in February 2008."

The non-defining relative clauses in the second relate to the years in which each establishment opened. It simply can't be confusing. It contains no ambiguity whatsoever, even to a reader with no knowledge of the places in question. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. I knew your response was going to be "the list contains no confusion" because it's a subjective term that can't be factually argued either way. I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about whether or not a particular list is or can be "confusing." I'm not wasting my time or yours on ridiculous minutia. I, personally, find that a list can result in confusion if the list items have commas, including, but not limited to, your example of "Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts, San Francisco, California, Singapore, and Millbank, London, England." So I change all of them that I come across. I would change that sales offices example to use semi-colons as well, if I knew which article contained that text. I'm not going to change the Gordon Ramsay one back because I don't care. I'm the author of WP:LETITGO for a reason. But write your reason for undoing my edits in an edit summary. Something like "Nope" just wastes everyone's time with me coming to your talk page for clarification.

Regarding the serial comma, you're mistaken. Here is the article before I began editing it. You'll note in the section titled "Early life" that it contains the text "a swimming pool manager, a welder, and a shopkeeper" with a serial comma. The section "Eating and exercising habits" contains the text "He often competes in ironman, marathons, and triathlons" with a serial comma. There are a number of other places with serial commas. I added serial commas in a number of places in which it was missing (here, here, here, here, here, and here), in an attempt to make the article "internally consistent." Whenever I add serial commas, I check the article for any other locations that need them, in an effort to make the article internally consistent. Obviously, I'm not perfect and can (and do) miss some. But I added quite a few and yet you undid only two of them here and here (one manually and one as an undo), without an edit summary on either one, and then after you specifically undo a fraction of my work, accuse me of making the article's serial commas inconsistent? This is why edit summaries are important especially when undoing another editor's work. Good day. Useight (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment re edit summaries. It was late. Nonetheless, 'Nope' was inappropriate and I apologise. I do think Oxford commas have a place and should be used to show separation when it might not be obvious. If, for instance, he had been a shop keeper and welder at the same time then no comma would make that apparent; as they weren't, the Oxford comma makes that clear.

Since you asked, the sales office example was taken from MOS semicolons, the link to which you pointed me.

Anyway, I appreciate your discussing this with me, apologise again and finally it's great to meet the author of WP:LETITGO! Many thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to this: Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe and Mischa for Mikhail) are not familiar to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture. " The footnote says non-English hypocorisms, because this is the English Wikipedia, and we're all expected to know that "Chuck" is short for "Charles". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Shame you reverted before giving me the opportunity to explain. You have left out the first part, 'As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism § English subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix ..."; consider treating names listed in the "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not.' Now, in the US, 'Chuck' is common, everywhere else, it isn't. It is neither "Shortening, often to the first syllable" nor is it "Addition of a diminutive suffix ...". It is "A short form that differs significantly from the name". Now, while a "few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms", "most are not". Chuck is not widely known as a name for 'Charles' outside of the US. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reinstated the edit to practise what I preach.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did reinstate it. I ask that you self-revert, because you're wrong and I don't want to edit war. The first part says As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism § English subsections." Hypocorism#English lists "Chuck" for "Charles", because it's a common English-language hypocorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reinstated the edit. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's listed there but I maintain that Chuck would fall into the 'most are not' category.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by to say I learnt someting new - the meaning of 'hypocorism' and that 'Chuck' is short for 'Charles'. Thanks to you both. Ben MacDui 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised. I didn't know, either. Perhaps it's because it's not widely used outside of the US????NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit, which reinstated the hypocorism, but I see you rolled it back. Whether or not you knew that "Chuck" is a hypocorism for "Charles" is irrelevant. It's a common hypocorism regardless. I did not know it wasn't common outside of the U.S., so I learned something too. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order I reinstated it before you said I hadn't.:). Regarding my point re the name and its relative ubiquity, is it fair to say I might have had a point?NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Chuck. Tbh I am don't care much about the presenting issue, but coming from a small country I am a regular visitor to the sense of how frustrating it is when "everybody knows" turns out to be "complicated". Ben MacDui 15:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo what's up? Just here to ask if I should delete the disambiguation page "Gilbert Burns" and replace it with the Gilbert Burns (fighter) article. You must be thinking "why?" and it's pretty simple, there only exists two Gilbert Burns' articles and the other one is about a farmer who's not even close to the relevance levels of the MMA Burns', so... like Tony Ferguson is not called "Tony Ferguson (fighter)" even though Tony Ferguson (skateboarder) exists due to the big differences on the social recognition, I thought the Burns' situation should be the same, what do u think? Thanks bud.

Yo. I have never heard of the farmer chap. No objection from me but I'm not sure of the protocol for this.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, will ask Cassiopeia anyways just to confirm, that dude knows everything haha. Keep safe. (talk) 1 June 2020 (UTC)

PabloLikesToWrestle. Good day. We should NOT delete the disambiguation page of "Gilbert Burns" as there is more than one Gilbert Burns (fighter and skateboarder) in Wikipedia. Disambiguation page is a page to list that of similar names so the viewer could locate the correct subject (see examples - Mercury, Joker, Alexander Volkov, Robert Whitaker, Valentyna Shevchenko and etc).

As for Tony Ferguson - page name "Tony Ferguson", who is a musician, was created on June 16, 2009 - see here-1 and it was deemed not notable enough to have the page on Wikipedia mainspace and was redirect to The Troubadours on July 13, 2009 - see here-2. Two years later, "Tony Ferguson (fighter) page was created on 14, May 6, 2011 - see here-3. The reason why "(fighter)" was added to the name it is because there already a "Tony Ferguson" in Wikipedia at that time which was redirect to The Troubadours. Since "Tony Furgerson" was a redirect which means at the time he was not notable enough, admin change change "Tony Ferguson to Tony Ferguson (musician) - see here here-4 and change "Tony Ferguson (fighter) to Tony Ferguson" - see here-5. One year later Tony Ferguson (skateboarder) was created - see here-6. The editor need to add (skateboarder) since there was already a page name Tony Ferguson. Currently, no one created a Tony Ferguson disambiguation page, for such you dont see a page listed all the Tony Ferguson on a disam page, it is same as Megan Anderson (fighter), Luis Peña (fighter). You can create a disamb page if you want. Hope the above explain what you asking for. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to the Graham Linehan page has the summary "undid edit that contradicted discussion" but I can't find this discussion. Could you link please? Thanks.Wikiditm (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The discussion I was referring to is that in the edit summaries, specifically as per LEAD. The edit I reverted was made by an editor who had not participated in any discussion and went against the principle of consensus (which can be shown by edit history as well as talk pages). Appreciate your talking, rather than battling - Thanks!NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a diff (there are several) to illustrate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Looks like it's gone back and forth a few times. Hopefully it calms down and we don't need another section on the talk page, but if it keeps flickering that might be necessary.Wikiditm (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]