User talk:Chris the speller
|Archive 1 (October 2005 – May 2006)|
|Archive 2 (May 2006 – November 2007)|
|Archive 3 (up to 90 days ago)|
|Wishing you a
"Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo"
(Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year)
Tony the Marine
Thanks: Counterculture 1960s
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into the local language
|The Cure Award|
|In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!|
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
I suggest that this edit comes under point 2 of Hyphens#3 ("little-celebrated paintings" etc). "Classically" can be used to mean something akin to "Stereotypically", and this sentence, without the hyphen, reads as if it is an inspired building, a stereotypically inspired building, rather than a building inspired by classical influences. Might be worth leaving "Classically" out of your project, or pausing to re-word each example rather than creating ambiguity by removing the hyphen? PamD 17:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern for proper hyphenation, but "classically inspired" and "classically-inspired" mean exactly the same thing, except that the latter is mispunctuated. Of course there is a huge difference between "little celebrated paintings" and "little-celebrated paintings", where the hyphen shows that "little" is an adverb that modifies "celebrated", and not an adjective that modifies "paintings". This is not the case with "classically inspired Georgian architectural forms", because "classically", being a standard "-ly" adverb, always modifies what immediately follows. Adding a hyphen conveys the same meaning, tipping off the reader that it is a compound modifier, but readers of English are expected to know that "classically inspired" is a compound modifier because of the "-ly" ending. We don't need to "dumb down" the language for imagined readers who lack that skill. Redundancy is not a virtue, unnecessary hyphenation is hyphenation that should be removed, and it is Wikipedia's style not to hyphenate in this case, according to bullet point 4. Feel free to change "classically inspired Georgian architectural forms" to "Georgian architectural forms that are inspired by the classics" or something similar, but the rewording is an entirely separate matter from fixing the punctuation. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 22:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar
|The Minor Barnstar|
|For correcting very many minor syntax and spelling errors. B14709 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)|
Copyedit on Megadeth
Hi Chris. Thanks for correcting the spelling mistakes on Megadeth. I was wondering if you're available to do a round of copyediting to the article? It recently failed FAC because it was insufficiently prepared, so your help will be welcomed. Have a nice day.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I only found one misspelling; everything else looks acceptable. Chris the speller yack 01:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"The non-word 'leafily'"
- @Chiswick Chap: You are aware that Wiktionary, far from being an authority on the language, is a place where a 6-year-old kid can add anything he makes up, right? No other dictionary has "leafily", and that should give you pause. The word appears in Wikipedia only in two articles about camouflage; it's pretty much understandable, but awkward, and it can be easily avoided. Chris the speller yack 13:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. Interesting that you've searched the whole encyclopedia for the term... we are in danger of trying too hard on this trivial matter. I imagine that your point is that 'leafily' is rather too flowery as language and thus unencyclopedic, with which I'd agree.
I do note, however, that "leafily camouflaged" (without the hyphen) looks and sounds extremely awkward to my eyes and ears as a native speaker of English; I imagine it did so to you as well, which may perhaps explain why you felt like replacing it with the current circumlocution. In general I'm in favour of avoiding circum-whatevers, and of following native feelings about language beyond the dictionary (I note that all guides to spelling and punctuation ultimately rely on actual practice, i.e. what people - native speakers - commonly write). In this case you are right, the use of short simple words, even using many where I'd habitually use one, is probably best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. Chris the speller yack 13:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Chris, I was wondering whether you could possibly offer your input on the recent changes - and reverts of those changes - on the Muslim conquests article. If possible, I would also much appreciate it if you might also offer some advice concerning an escalating dispute involving myself and another editor. Thank you very much for your time. Torontas (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm better at spelling and punctuation than I am at dispute resolution and that aspect of history. The differences should be discussed and resolved on the article's talk page. You should take part in that discussion, not drag innocent bystanders into it. Chris the speller yack 03:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I didn't find any need for correction. Chris the speller yack 14:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)