- 1 The1973onez
- 2 ordinariate
- 3 Question about some facts in a recent edit
- 4 Ignatius Joseph III Yonan
- 5 Question re a recent edit
- 6 FYI
- 7 Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?
- 8 Edits at Durham colleges
- 9 Please use preview
- 10 Icthus
- 11 About Enneagram
- 12 Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
- 13 Steve Darcis discussion
- 14 Bircham International University
- 15 User talk:220.127.116.11
- 16 Meryl Streep etc
- 17 Talkback
- 18 Commercial websites?
- 19 Stanley Fish
- 20 Reference formatting
- 21 November 2013
- 22 None: fuller explanation
- Thanks. You can add my talk page to the list as well if you want. Afterwriting (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
How is it not relevant to add that the Lutherans aren't the only ones who've had ordinariates suggested for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmastricken (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- How relevant to anything are some speculative comments on a personal blog which isn't acceptable as a reference in the first place? They aren't relevant at all of course. If you have anything of substance on this matter from an official source within the Roman Catholic Church then it can be considered for inclusion. Afterwriting (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Question about some facts in a recent edit
Hi. I noticed your recent edits to NationsUniversity. It appears to me that the overall effect of your edit was to restore a reference that had been inexplicably removed. (Thanks for your work on that sort of thing!)
I followed up with the sourcing that you restored to find details such as when they applied for accreditation and how their status was reported by the accreditor. (I learned that they were first identified as an applicant in January 2010, and that status doesn't seem to have changed.) I didn't find any indication that they had passed a readiness assessment, as indicated in the article. Did you happen to check the source and see something I overlooked? (If not, I guess I'll go back to the article and revise it to remove that detail.) --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Orlady. I only had a cursory look at the removed references and I restored them on the basis that they seemed relevant and because the IP and SPA editor's removal of them seemed suspicious. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Question re a recent edit
Hello. Hope you don't mind me contacting you.
I noticed on the Samantha Lane page that you have edited the opening line ..."is an award winning Australian sports writer," ... to read ..."is an Australian sports writer," ...
I am just wondering what the reason is for that change, I'm new to editing (last four weeks or so) and learning all the time. I used the words "award winning" because she has won awards - as listed in the Awards section, with verifying references. I can see you have a great deal of experience and would appreciate your guidance/comment.
- Thanks for the question. Using such expressions as "award winning" in articles is strongly discouraged because they can be construed as examples of "puffery" or "peacock" wording. Please read the Manual of Style on this issue at WP:PEACOCK. The opening sentence in particular should stick to the basic facts of who a person is. Information on anyone's achievements should be specific and appear later in the article. Vaguely saying that someone is "award winning" is meaningless as the award(s) may not be notable ones. Hope this helps. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI since you've also reverted this ed you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mitredestructor2, edit warring and repeated insertion of Non-RS BLOG links NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?
Edits at Durham colleges
Hi, I noticed you've been editing some articles which I've recently edited on Durham college. Thank you for correcting some of the titles I may have written in the incorrect format - could you point me too the policy on this so that I can read it. I'm very surprised if Rt Rev. is allowed and yet Prof. is not. Also, with regard degrees people had studied, you've removed some and yet not others. I used a similar style to List_of_alumni_of_Jesus_College,_Oxford:_Law_and_government where there is not a problem with stating the degrees. Again, I cannot see a problem with this.
Also, this edit seems a bit unhelpful as you actually removed quite a few references that I had added associated with those people. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Chad%27s_College&curid=670210&diff=549178388&oldid=549177126 Thanks for the help, some of the pages are very poor quality currently. Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. I apologise for removing the references but the problem was caused by your reversion of my many correct style edits (mostly of the multiple incorrect capitalisation of common nouns) and then adding the references after restoring the style mistakes. I removed the degrees which I noticed. Academic titles such as "Dr" and "Professor" as well as qualification abbreviations are not normally used with names in articles. Some other styles and titles are permitted in specific ways however. I appreciate that it can seem inconsistent. There are style policies or guidelines on these matters. When I find them I will add them here. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I understand, I don't believe I changed the capitalisation of nouns - may it have been we were editing at the same time and I reverted to an earlier version. Sorry about that anyway. And thank you for looking for the guidelines for me, when I tried to find them I didn't have any luck. It would be nice to know the official policy so that I know for future. Many thanks Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Please use preview
- ??? I don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about regarding "misplaced edits". Please enlighten me. Afterwriting (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read my new section in the talk of the entry: "Ennegram of Personality" so that we stop editing one over the other continuously. Your opinion on the etymology of the word enneagram is wrong.
• Orphiwn (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC) •
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
|World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!|
|Hi Afterwriting! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)|
Steve Darcis discussion
Hi, I started a discussion on whether or not his victory against Nadal should be mentioned in the lead. I see you've edited the page so could you share your opinion on the talk? Thanks, --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Bircham International University
Hi. As you have contributed previously to the Bircham International University Wikipedia article, I'd appreciate it if you could review my comment on the article Talk Page regarding a recent statement issued by John Bear. I'd like to get some advice on how best to proceed. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You probably saw my edit above yours, but just in case you missed it, I've withdrawn talk page editing rights from this user until this block expires, so you won't get an immediate response, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Meryl Streep etc
As an experienced editor, you must know that you cannot casually drop a theory into an article. That is either personal opinion or original research, and either way it can't be done. My recollection is that, in Australia, the "dingo's got my baby" jokes started almost as soon as the event had taken place.
- You are correct, at least in principle, even though it is probably beyond any reasonable doubt that phrase (or corrupted versions of it such as "dingoes ate my baby") only came to prominence in popular culture in the United States due to Streep's portayal of Lindy Chamberlain in the movie. It seems highly improbable that the jokes in Australia had much to do with this. As it stands, however, the article still lacks any context for the comments about the popular culture references in America to the "incident" (it is really more the phrase rather than the whole incident I expect) and without it is next to meaningless. I will try to find a reliable source or at least reword things more appropriately. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi - noticed you removed a reference I added to Humberto Maturana on the grounds that it was from a "commercial website" (ie a link to reviews on an Amazon page). Didn't have to go back too far through your own edits to find you adding e.g. a YouTube link as a reference: if YouTube isn't a commercial website I don't what is. Is there a policy as to which commercial websites can be inserted into Wikipedia articles and which not? Cheers Testbed (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks for your message. There are some general policies and guidelines on these matters which can be found at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Going on the interpretation of these principles by other editors it would seem that the view is usually taken that Amazon links aren't acceptable as the website principally exists to sell things. I also doubt that reviews on that site could ever be considered as "reliable". Only reviews in "reliable" sources such as established newspapers could, I imagine, be acceptable. I am always confused about the acceptability of YouTube both for references and external links. Personally I would have thought that videos weren't acceptable ~ not so much for "commercial" reasons as for potential copyright issues. That recent edit I made including a YouTube video was the first I have ever made doing this and was done to clarify something that was in dispute. On further thought, however, I now believe that this was a mistake on my part and I will now remove it. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. IMHO WP policy re blogs (and other user-defined content, such as the Amazon reviews I cited) may modulate over time, as online writing blurs into open source (if of course this is indeed the future, which is moot). But I agree for now. However, I don't happen to agree with you about YouTube but then perhaps this is an open area, given the large number of current stable links. Testbed (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has previously edited the Stanley Fish article, I think you'd be interested in seeing that a newly registered user named Macroscope is trying to spin some sort of skewed view of the article's subject. Please have a look both at the article and talk page. I am logged out as I write this so as to avoid a potential troll-trail for said editor to follow. Thanks. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that on 20 August 2013, you re-formatted some references cited for the Paul Little (Australian businessman) article. I had been using a different style but on seeing your edits I have now adopted your styling. Thanks for your guidance. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment even though I am not an expert on referencing formats and I'm sure that I make my own share of "mistakes" on this front. As previously, I appreciate your politeness and your openess to advice in improving your editing. It's a welcome relief from having to deal with so many offensive and reactionary editors. All the best. Afterwriting (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael Edwards (art therapist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ] and curator of the picture archive of the artwork of patients of [[C. G. Jung]].<ref>[http://www.junginstitut.ch/english/picture-archive/ Picture Archive webpage on the Jung Institute
None: fuller explanation
None, from the negative ne and one, i.e. not one, is grammatically a singular subject, and is the subject of the verb killed. So the way to analyse the sentence is: Not one [of the children] was killed, just like One [of the children] was chosen . . . . Aquaglass had it right, even though this rule has largely fallen into disuse in recent times, which is why I am restoring their edit. Cheers, Awien (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but in this example "were" is correct as "none" refers to a plural entity ~ in this case the "children" ~ and its grammatical sense is "not any" rather than "not one". See this article as well as this one among many expert articles which debunk your argument. Afterwriting (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- The plural form is not just "now acceptable" (something which you did appear to deny). It has apparently been so since Old English times regardless of whatever etymology for "none" the OED offers. Etymology doesn't necessarily determine sensible grammar use in particular instances.
- The second link I provided quoted directly from Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, which says: “Clearly none has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen in the 19th century. If in context it seems like a singular to you, use a singular verb; if it seems like a plural, use a plural verb. Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism.” (p. 664)