User talk:DocRushing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Greyhound Corporation[edit]

There is a Greyhound Corporation article which could probably use the addition of all the information you have included in your related Greyhound articles. Since the Corp article is the foundation of many others, it would probably help to completely rewrite it to bring things into sync with everything else you have done. If you feel it is wrongly titled, it should be moved to The Greyhound Corporation. I can do the move. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion.
I heartily agree.
I've already begun drafting exactly what you described.
When I finish that piece, I'll post it.
Yes, the title really should be The Greyhound Corporation – with the word "the" with a capital T – because the word "the" was an integral part of the official name of the :corporate entity.
If you wish, please move the present one.
I've also begun pieces on both the original National Trailways Bus System and the Continental Trailways.
I hope to continue by adding more articles about several more Greyhound regional companies.
Thanks again for your note.
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved and articles relinked. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

October 2012 – failure and refusal of Tinton5 to discuss false accusations[edit]

Your recent editing history at Doris Singleton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. This is the "third" time I have had to change your edits. Please refrain from changing U.S. to USA. You fully do not understand the style guidelines used and what is considered general practice on this site. If you change it one more time, this will be taken to a discussion board with administrators and you could be blocked. Please, do not let this happen, over a minor detail for crying out loud. Tinton5 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Let’s look at the background:
On 23 August 2012, while again reading the article about Doris Singleton, I noticed that Timmyo101, acting through a sock puppet known as TDKR Chicago 101, had changed “USA” to “U.S.” in the names of the places of the birth and the death of the subject actress.  [Those two accounts have become identified as the sources of a number of disruptive or counterproductive changes, and both the principal and the puppet have become indefinitely blocked from further posting (the former on 30 June 2012 and the latter on 01 September 2012).]  I then reverted “U.S.” to “USA”.  [The term “USA” had previously been in place for some time.]
At 02:43 on 30 August 2012 you changed “USA”, a correct form, back to “U.S.”, the form which the sock puppet had inserted.
At 11:34 on that same day, 30 August 2012, I again restored “USA”, which is not only the previous form but also a correct, appropriate, and desirable form.  In my edit summary I commented that “USA” is the conventional abbreviation used in geographic designations.
Shortly afterward, 91 minutes later, at 13:05, you again changed back to “U.S.”, the form which the sock puppet had inserted.
After more than a week, on 08 September 2012, while correcting several other mistakes on the same page, I also again restored “USA”, which is the previous form and still a correct form.
Four weeks later, on 06 October 2012, you again changed back to “U.S.”, the form which the sock puppet had inserted.  In your edit summary you wrote your overstated and inaccurate opinion that “U.S. is standard in English Wikipedia articles on American subjects”.  Then, still in your edit summary, you issued an order to the world (or to the Wikipedia part of the world), using the words “do not change again”.  [We’ll return shortly to your opinion and your order.]
On 17 October 2012, having noticed that you had again changed back to “U.S.”, I again restored “USA”.  In my edit summary I explained more explicitly that “USA” is the “conventional geographic designation” when describing a location in the “form of city-state-nation”.
On the next day, 18 October 2012, you again changed back to “U.S.”.  [Had you watched that page so that you could quickly detect whether anyone had dared to disobey or disregard your order or command?]
After one more day, on 19 October 2012, on my talk page you posted a note.  You accused me of having engaged in an edit war and having violated the three-revert rule (3RR), and you threatened to block me or to cause me to become blocked.
First, let’s look at the three-revert rule and your allegation that I had breached it.  As you’re supposed to know and understand, the 3RR forbids a user to make more than three reversions within 24 hours.  Again – the rule forbids more than three reversions within 24 hours.  Clearly, according to the chronology above, at no time have I ever made more than one change during any 24 consecutive hours.  I made my corrections – one time each day – on 23 and 30 August, 08 September, and 17 October 2012.  Undeniably, therefore, your accusation against me about the 3RR is patently false and absolutely without any merit whatever.
Second, let’s look at who has tried to start a war with whom.  On 23 August 2012 I corrected a change which a disruptive sock puppet had made – that is, I changed from “U.S.” to “USA” in two name places – New York, New York, USA, and Los Angeles, California, USA.  Then on 30 August 2012 you took the first step in a series of reversions of my correction of the work of a disruptive sock puppet.  Then three more times – a total of four times – you reverted my correction of the work of that puppet.  With due regard for the indisputable chronology above, it appears that you (not I) are the one who has engaged in a perverse and ill-founded contest or competition of some sort against my good-faith correction of the work of a disruptive puppet.  If anyone here has engaged in an edit war at all, you (not I) are the one who started it and continued it.
Third, let’s look at “U.S.” versus “USA” and your personal preference for the former.  As I recited in my edit summaries of 30 August and 17 October 2012, in this country, in the USA, when we identify a place in the form of city, state, and nation, the clear and obvious way is to write, for example, South Bend, Indiana, USA, regardless of whether we write it in an address block or in running text.  In certain contexts the alternate abbreviation “US” is sometimes useful and appropriate – as, for example, in a book, article, speech, or conversation in which the writer or speaker draws a contrast or comparison between the US and the UK (United Kingdom), or in the partially abbreviated names of the US Marine Corps, the US Naval Academy, the Supreme Court of the US, or the Constitution of the US.  However, in many other contexts or expressions, where more specificity is needed, desirable, or conventional – as, for example, made in the USA, packaged in the USA, printed in the USA, assembled in the USA, or Nashville, Tennessee, USA, or in idiomatic names such as Music City, USA, Opryland, USA, or Texarkana, USA.  Those expressions are among our social, literary, journalistic, and typographic conventions.  [Have you ever seen or heard a reference to Miss USA as “Miss U.S.”?  We just don’t do that.  Nobody does it!]  Unfortunately, a few “users” or “editors” at Wikipedia have a fondness for defying conventions and contaminating place names in the USA by writing the form of City, State, U.S.  However, I remain persuaded that that practice and those practitioners are misguided, ill-founded, and amateurish.
Fourth, let’s look at the previous communication between you and me.  Apart from our respective edit summaries, you did not make even one attempt at preliminary communication with me.  Instead, on 19 October 2012 on my talk page you posted a nastygram (above) in which you pronounced your false accusations and your unjustified threat or warning.  Your tone in that note is distinctly belligerent, high-handed, dictatorial, overbearing, and condescending.  That’s not a good way for you to open communication or to resolve a difference.  Further, one of your edit summaries includes a peremptory demand – “do not change again” – rather than a polite request.  It’s unwise for you to write that way to me or to anyone else at Wikipedia or elsewhere.
Fifth, let’s look at qualifications, including education and experience – the qualifications which enable anyone to know, recognize, understand, decide, or recommend what’s right, better, or acceptable.  What are your qualifications?  I don’t mind revealing mine.  I have three degrees – baccalaureate, master’s, and doctorate – plus additional training in writing and editing.  I started working in journalism in 1953 (almost 60 years ago).  I later served as the editor in chief of a newspaper at a major private university.  I’ve worked in mass communication – writing, editing, rewriting, ghostwriting, speaking, and broadcasting – throughout my entire adult life.  I’ve taught business communication and other business subjects at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.  I have a documented professional reputation for producing written work which is “singularly and consistently free of errors in spelling, grammar, syntax, and composition”.  When I write or speak about questions in these areas, I do so with the authority of expertise and experience.
Sixth, I’ve looked at some of your work – not only your note (above) on my talk page but also some of your contributions to several articles.  I write this with not even one bit of ugly or unkind intent.  On the contrary, I write this paragraph as gently as possible.  Those samples of your writing – including the awkwardness (or the lack of polish or fluidity) of some of your words, along with your misuse of commas, quotation marks, italics, and boldface type – do not bear the mark of one who is well versed in the craft of writing and editing.  It’s OK for anyone to be short on qualifications, but it’s not OK for a less qualified person to dictate to others or to try to impose one’s own unconventional personal preferences on others.
Seventh, I invite you to visit my website.  I call it Bluehounds and Redhounds.  It’s my special hobby.  It tells the histories of both Greyhound and Trailways.  It’s still under construction.  On my home page I tell about some of my encounters with several of the other people at Wikipedia, some of whom – in the manner of schoolyard bullies – I found to be “the self-appointed and self-assured (and usually overconfident) hall monitors who presume to tell others what to do or how to do it”.  I describe those as “mostly … long on zeal but short on knowledge, long on noise but short on experience, and long on arguments but short on qualifications”.  [A large number of my readers, viewers, and visitors have contacted me, have expressed agreement with my assessment, and have told me about some of their similar experiences at Wikipedia.]
Finally, I suggest that it would be a good idea for you to rescind your threat or warning toward me.
I’ll post this item on your talk page as well as mine.
Cordially and sincerely,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC).
Tinton5:
On 19 October 2012 you placed on this page a note (above) in which you expressed your unfounded and unjustified opinion that I had engaged in an edit war, and that I had violated the three-revert rule (3RR).  You also made a specific threat or warning that you would block me or cause me to become blocked.
On 28 October 2012 I sent you an answer (above).  I posted it on both your talk page and mine.  In it I clearly demonstrated the patent falsity of your accusations against me, and I discussed your complaint or displeasure about my use of the conventional abbreviation USA in a geographic description such as Music City, USA, or Nashville, Tennessee, USA.  I also asked you to rescind your accusations and your threat or warning.
Later that same day, 28 October 2012, you deleted my message from your talk page.
However, that message remains on mine (above).
Two weeks have passed, but I’ve not yet received a response from you.
You made grave accusations and grave threats or warnings against me.  I’ve taken those quite seriously.
Even if you prefer not to discuss the matter any further, please at least rescind your accusations and threats.
As before, I’ll post this on your talk page as well as mine.
Cordially and sincerely,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Tinton5:
On 19 October 2012 you placed on my talk page a note (above) in which you expressed your unfounded and unjustified opinion that I had engaged in an edit war, and that I had violated the three-revert rule (3RR).  You also made a specific threat or warning that you would block me or cause me to become blocked.
On 28 October 2012 I sent you an answer (above). I clearly demonstrated the patent falsity of your accusations against me, and I discussed your complaint or displeasure about my use of the conventional abbreviation USA in a geographic description such as Music City, USA, or Nashville, Tennessee, USA. I also asked you to rescind your accusations and your threat or warning about blocking.
Later that same day, 28 October 2012, you deleted my message from your talk page.
Two weeks later, on 12 November 2012, I sent you a reminder because I’d not yet received a response from you.
The next day, 13 November 2012, you deleted that note also from your talk page.
Four weeks and more have passed since I first contacted you, but I’ve still not received a reply.
You made serious accusations against me, and you made a serious threat or warning against me.
However, it has become obvious that you’re either unable or unwilling – or both – to discuss your gripe or complaint against me or my activity at the Wikipedia.
You’ve had ample opportunity – far more than just a reasonable opportunity – to engage in a candid and constructive conversation – in a sensible and intelligent manner, as a mature adult would – using respect, common sense, and good judgment – about your objections or your personal preferences.
Since you’ve failed and refused to discuss the matter with me, I’ve concluded that you’ve withdrawn from your previous position, and that you’ve conceded the points involved.
It would not be a good idea for you to raise again the same points or similar ones against me or my work anytime in the future.
As before, I’ll post this on your talk page as well as my own.
Cordially and sincerely,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization[edit]

Although the military insists that we capitalize words like air force, the Wiki Manual of Style takes exception. Unless a word like "marine" or "navy" is further identified by an adjective-thingee, it is not a proper noun. After all many people are marines, and there are many navies around the world. Of course you are right about my decapitation of "Chief of Naval Operations;" I got carried away. Thank you for checking my work. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm AldezD. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please do not make personal attacks in the edit summaries of your reversions as you did in the following edits: "ill-founded tampering", "poorly expressed", "repairing links damaged during alleged 'cleanup' by another user", "meddlesomeness" AldezD (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and your note.
Predictably, I strongly agree that we at the Wikipedia need good people with good skills and good attitudes.
Please indulge me while I tell you about some of my relevant encounters here.
In September 2008 I started working here, and I soon began to run into a series of disappointing responses from some of the other users (without my having received even one “welcome” message of any sort).
For example, early I asked a specific technical question of an experienced long-time user who had sarcastically criticized one of my articles. His only response was a snarky refusal to answer me and to participate in what he called my “contamination” of the Wikipedia. [Later I learned the answer through my own digging.]
Those unpleasant experiences led me, after composing 10 articles, to limit my work here and to create a website of my own.
Please take a look at the home page of Bluehounds and Redhounds and take a special look at the section in it entitled “The Reason for This Website”, which describes the ugliness which I’ve met at the Wikipedia.
Eventually I resumed taking part here in a limited way, especially after my attention turned to racial segregation and integration in public transport, then onward to the wider spectrum of slavery and racial discrimination in general.
That interest led me to start rewriting the plot summaries for the Wikipedia articles about the TV productions of the works of Alex Haley, starting, naturally, with the original Roots. I’ve completed that one, The Next Generations, and Queen, and I’ve started Mama Flora's Family. I plan to continue to The Gift.
Now that I’ve retired (from working for pay at least), and after I finish the Haley plot summaries, I’ll return to my own website and continue to develop it.
While watching those pages at the Wikipedia, along with a number of others, I’ve appreciated several genuine improvements by others, but I’ve also felt quite displeased about a number of other instances of clumsy and amateurish meddling, tampering, and unsharpening.
Although I try hard to avoid the dreaded trap of ownership, I nonetheless dislike and resent the unconstructive and deconstructive efforts which damage the good work of me and others.
You mentioned several instances, so let’s look at those:
On the page about Citizen Kane, an anonymous user (who has previously received a warning about vandalism), inserted this: “The 1987 Cartoon The Real Ghostbusters episode ‘Ghostbuster of the Year’ sees A woman hires Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston to get rid of Hearst Castle from the ghost of publishing mogul Charles Foster Hearst. Whoever catches him will get named Ghostbuster of the Year. It eventually turns out that Hearst's ghost simply wanted his sled, called ‘Rosebud’.” When I reverted that paragraph, in my edit summary I characterized it as questionable, unsourced, and poorly expressed. You did not challenge my first two adjectives, yet you objected to “poorly expressed”.
Also on the page about Citizen Kane, a new different anonymous user excised an entire participial phrase (“although noting its technical advancements”) without any comment or documentation. When I restored it, in my edit summary I said that I “reverted unilateral unexplained removal of significant phrase”, and I posed a question, asking whether the removal were “vandalism or meddlesomeness” – or, of course, maybe something else.
On the page of The Next Generations, a youngster (who claims to have made more than 80,000 contributions), under the edit summary of “cleanup”, made several mistakes in spelling and capitalization and damaged many links which I had created. In several of the latter he changed or twisted the meaning or emphasis of the terms in question (for example, the Battle of Fort Pillow versus the Massacre at Fort Pillow, which are related but distinctly different events). When I corrected those errors, in my edit summary I described my “repairing links damaged during alleged ‘cleanup’ by another user”.
While working on the plot summaries of Roots, The Next Generations, and Queen, I thoroughly enjoyed spending many uncounted hours, including several hours on creating the internal links, which I did in a sensible, systematic, helpful, and truly constructive manner. Bearing in mind that many of our readers are unsophisticated or less-informed readers, and that many of them are overseas readers whose first language is not English, I took special care to make it easy for anyone to read further about any place, concept, object, or event. Many of the readers of these articles about the Haley collection are not as well versed in the background culture of the US as are the average North American audience, and some of them are readers of English who live in other English-speaking cultures in other parts of the world. That is, many people in other cultures seek to learn about the segment of the history of the USA dealing with slavery, racial discrimination, segregation, and integration, in part by reading the works by Haley, watching the derivative TV productions, and reading reference materials, including the articles about him and them at the Wikipedia. While thinking about those readers unfamiliar with the geography or the cultural background of the US, I intentionally and deliberately made it easy to provide a liberal assortment of links – to enable any of those readers to pursue further reading about directly and reasonably related items.
Of course, I took assiduous care to ensure that I linked each term only at its first occurence in the text, not at any repetition.
Further, when referring to geographic names in the form of “town-comma-state” or “town-comma-county-comma-state”, I carefully crafted the links in a way which allow a reader to click separately on the links to the specific articles about the town, the county (where applicable), and the state, plus one special link to West Tennessee, one of the three “grand divisions” of my home state. However, you and a couple of other users have telescoped those separate links into single links, in such a way that a reader cannot separately click on, for example, Henning, Lauderdale County, and Tennessee; instead you and they have left single links to, for other examples, Savannah, Charleston, and Greensboro, without allowing a reader to click also on Georgia, South Carolina, or North Carolina.
You’ve described the Roots page as overlinked, so let’s take a look at that.
As you’ve noted, the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MoS) includes a page about linking, which provides an introductory explanation and an extensive set of guidelines, which in turn include descriptions and examples of linking, overlinking, and underlinking.
Please note well that that page emphasizes that it is a guideline or a set of guidelines, not an ironclad, inviolable policy, that there are to be occasional exceptions to them, and that they are to be used with common sense. [And please recall that one of the five pillars of the Wikipedia proclaims that the Wikipedia does not have firm rules.] The page itself says that it tells what “generally should” be done or not done, not what absolutely or invariably must be done or not done. It suggests that a writer, rewriter, or editor, while deciding whether to link or not, should ask how likely a reader might wish to read also that other article.
Well, that’s exactly how I made my decisions while composing those rewrites of the plot summaries.
Because I speak several languages, a number of times I’ve coached or mentored groups of foreign students and others who have a fairly good command of English without having the insights into the intricacies of our vocabulary, our culture, and our history. Those experiences have allowed me to develop a sense about the potential stumbling blocks for less-informed readers or readers whose first language is not English.
Using that notion, I decided that I could help some of the members of our target audience by providing links to, for example, auction, tobacco, moniker, forgery, stillborn, blacksmith, chattel, and the Emancipation Proclamation – along with slave ship, slave trader, the slavery system, and the plantation system – plus the significance of the long sailings associated with the Middle Passage, the cavalry in the Civil War, and the Confederate States of America – and the meaning of the statement that Belle bears a daughter.
Many readers outside the US cannot easily recognize some or all of those terms, and many less-informed readers even within the US likewise cannot do so.
Many people outside Virginia do not know where Spotsylvania County lies, many outside North Carolina do not even recognize the name of Caswell County or Albemarle County, and many outside Tennessee do not know much about Henning or Lauderdale County except that Alex Haley once lived there for a while.
So let’s help those people! Let’s make it easy for them to increase their understanding of the topic at hand and to find relevant information about related topics – by providing them with a liberal number of helpful links.
Other principles of the Wikipedia strongly encourage us to edit boldly and at times to bend or break the rules – as long as we genuinely serve the purpose of increasing the value of the project to our readers – and provided that we exercise common sense, good judgment, and mature wisdom while doing so.
You’ve quoted a part of the list of “what generally should not be linked”, so let’s look at that.
The list starts with a description of an overlinked article – one which contains so many links that it’s hard for readers "to identify links likely to significantly aid" their understanding. [However, I feel confident that my links in my rewrites do not do any of that; quite to the contrary, my links make it easy for them to use those links to their advantage in their pursuit of knowledge.]
Then the list recites several types of topics. It mentions “everyday words understood by most readers in context”. [For many people in our target audience, my links do not represent everyday words.] It also mentions languages, common occupations, and major geographic places (with the italic type for emphasis on major right on the page). [I’m willing to concede that “English” may go too far – and maybe “cook” – but not “blacksmith” (due to potential uncertainty) or “physician” (Is that the same as a physicist?, a foreign reader might wonder) – and definitely not any of the geographic names, not even that of Annapolis, Maryland, which deserves a link due to its historical significance in the story and in the subject – because they’re not major places such as Chicago or Los Angeles.]
The decision to link or not to link a particular topic turns on the judgment of each author at work. If one writer or rewriter has included certain links, and if that one has not clearly violated any rule, guideline, or other legitimate limitation, is it not presumptuous for some other user to second-guess the decisions of the one who did the work, and is it not presumptuous to substitute the judgment of the second in the place of the judgment of the first?
One principle of the Wikipedia, one which even the vandals invoke, is that any user has a right to edit the work of any other.
However, that freedom to edit carries with itself an attached and corresponding duty and responsibility, which the revising “editors” often overlook – the implied duty of revisers to be well qualified people with not only the requisite knowledge of the subject matter but also the requisite skills in writing, editing, revising, and rewriting – or, said inversely, the implied duty for unqualified people with limited knowledge or limited skills to refrain from damaging existing material or detracting from it.
Further, a related point specifically concerns the matter of one user who revises the work of another. The official advice of the Wikipedia expressly forbids remolding an article merely to suit the personal preferences of a revising editor. On at least two occasions (and likely even more), the Arbitration Committee has said:
"When either of two styles [is] acceptable[,] it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason .... Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; ... it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles ...."
"Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
That means that, “unless there is some substantial reason for the change”, a reviser should not remold an article into the shape in which the reviser would have created it – that is, to cause the article to look as though the reviser had written it.
Respectfully, of course, I suggest that that means, more particularly, that you did not have a good justification for removing that large number of carefully placed links, and that you did not have a good justification for substituting your judgment in the place of mine with regard to them.
In your note to me on my talk page, you accused me of incivility and personal attacks in four instances – in four specific edit summaries – so let’s look again at my exact words:
In one, when I reverted a questionable and unsourced new insertion, I described that paragraph also as “poorly expressed”.
In another, when I reverted a unilateral unexplained removal of a significant phrase, I posed a rhetorical question, asking whether the removal were “vandalism or meddlesomeness” – or, of course, maybe something else.
In a third, after a youngster, under the edit summary of “cleanup”, made several mistakes in spelling and capitalization and damaged many links which I had created – and changed or twisted the meaning or emphasis of several of the terms in question – when I corrected those errors, in my edit summary I described my “repairing links damaged during alleged ‘cleanup’ by another user”.
In one, when I reverted the first large batches of your removals of my links, I described your work as “ill-founded tampering”.
If you feel displeased about my characterization of that piece of your work, I regret your unhappiness.
However, as I’ve thoroughly explained here, I remain persuaded that your changes were not well founded and not well justified, and that they amount to tampering with my work rather than improving it.
Still, though, regardless of whether my descriptions are accurate or not, let’s carefully examine not only my words but also your accusations. At no time did I comment on you or any of those other users. Quite to the contrary, I carefully limited my words to the work, not the people – the work of you and the others, not you personally and not any of them personally.
Clearly, unmistakably, and undeniably, none of my comments comes even close to anything even remotely resembling a personal attack. I criticized the work, but I absolutely did not say anything at all about you or any of the other users.
Further, my words in those edit summaries consist of objective and unemotional characterizations.
If you feel that I somehow have misconstrued something about the policy on civil behavior, please grant me the grace of showing me exactly how and where you think I have.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
I’ll post this on your talk page as well as mine.
Thanks for your patience.
Cordially and sincerely,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Navy/navy - Support[edit]

Thanks for the support. I just got into this particular topic last night but I just couldn't believe people were getting this wrong. It seems pretty clear to me. And not a Navy man, but a sailor (sailboats). Like all things water. I have a brother in law who is a submariner (don't remember the boat, he's out of Norfolk, nuclear officer, working on chief).Kchinger (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization again[edit]

Doc,

I've responded to the points relevant to the proposal on that page, but I wanted to respond to your comments. I don't have strong opinions about grammar and my grammar skills are not strong. What I try to do in editing Wikipedia is follow the Manual of Style, but sometimes I can't tell what it intends. Because of that I have proposed language to make it more clear. If you could help with language that would clarify the MoS, I would be in your debt. Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

USS Iowa turret explosion[edit]

Dear Doc, Your latest edit summary. "15:56, 20 April 2013‎ DocRushing (talk | contribs)‎ . . (166,345 bytes) (+15,267)‎ . . (Restoration of correct tense sequence and correct capitalization of Navy when used as a proper noun.)" This particular edit involved 15+k of edits. It was a lot more fulsome than you gave yourself credit for. You obviously understated what you did. I assume that was an inadvertence. Nevertheless, I think everyone would benefit from a more accurate and full description next time. 7&6=thirteen () 21:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

13:
I've answered on your own talk page.
Thanks.
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Grammatically, I think it was clearer and more succinct they way I wrote it. I disagree with your overuse of "had", but I don't want to parse commas with you. OTOH, direct and active voice is almost always better.
As to your edit summary, I know what you did, and it is apparent that your edits were broader than your edit summary suggested. I saw the history, and was aware of your changes. Misleading edit summaries, even if they are well-intended, will beget discord. In fact, I can see that there is lots of discord on that page, and I'll leave it to the consensus to figure out whether it is "navy" or "Navy". I'm not that interested in such naval gazing. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 11:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
13:
Thank you for sharing your personal views and opinions.
Now let's focus on what matters.
What matters is not what you think or believe, not what I think or believe, not what any other person thinks or believes.
What matters is what the applicable rules or principles say, prescribe, or require.
Writing is an art or craft, just as painting is an art or craft, regardless of whether it involves house painting, sign painting, bridge painting, portrait painting, or automobile painting.
The masters and experts in writing have developed a body of principles which describe what works right, well, best, and most effectively, just as the masters and experts in painting, in each of the areas of painting, and in music, flying, surgery, photography, and a host of other specialties, have developed their respective bodies of principles which describe what works right, well, best, and most effectively in their own domains.
In the art or craft of writing and composition, our predecessors have developed a body of rules or principles of grammar, syntax, and construction.
Those principles include, among many others, certain precepts which define the proper way to use the various tenses of the verbs by which we indicate the time sense of the events or occurrences in a narrative.
If a narrative includes more than one time stage when the events occur, we use a sequence of the tenses of the verbs used; to describe more recent action in the past, we use the simple (that is, imperfect or incomplete) past tense, and, to describe more distant or remote action in the past, we use the past-perfect tense.
That's one of the basic and elementary principles used in describing events in the past; it's called tense sequence.
When several other users (not I) collaborated on the article about the turret explosion aboard USS Iowa, they properly used the principle of tense sequence while describing two stages in the past.
When you removed the word had (an auxiliary verb which serves as the sign of the past-perfect tense), you destroyed the correct tense sequence.
A short and simple truth is that you messed up their work.
Of course, I do not doubt that you acted in good faith, but you nonetheless messed up their work.
That's why I corrected your mistakes, by restoring the proper and correct sequence of tenses.
Incidentally, I heartily agree with you that the active voice is highly desirable and preferable, because it's much stronger and more direct, as you mentioned.
In my own work I use the active voice almost exclusively; I resort to the passive voice only when I do not find a satisfactory way of using the active voice to express the same thought.
However, the choice between the active voice and the passive voice bears no relation to tense sequence, the past-perfect tense, or the word had in the context in question.
If you wish to improve your knowledge and skills in the craft of writing and composing, including tenses, tense sequence, voices, modes, and a host of other techniques, I'll gladly recommend to you several good books on this subject.
If you have a question about any of this, please ask, and I'll try hard to help.
Best wishes,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your view. It read and flowed better my way. I would respectfully suggest you read Strunk & White, as refreshers are good for us all. 7&6=thirteen () 11:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"If you had had better instruction, you would have been keenly aware that sentences like this are an abomination." [If you had better instruction, you would know this sentence was abominable.] "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." "Churcill on Prepositions". Wayne State University. Retrieved April 22, 2013.  Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen () 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste error at USS Iowa turret explosion[edit]

Doc, forgive me for pointing it out, but I think you made a gross cut-and-paste error when you made this edit. After the final navbox you seem to have added c.15kB of "Notes" and "Further information", plus the navbox, which already exist above. Yours, 2.101.32.49 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the tip!
You're exactly right.
How embarrassing!
When I did the cut-and-paste, I highlighted and copied only the source coding for the previous version without adding anything more.
Unfortunately, though, by a process which I dare not to try to fathom, one computer or another – the one at Wikipedia, I suspect – somehow somewhat scrambled the rather long block and added more.
Anyway, in response to your kind and generous tip, I've corrected the mistake.
Of course, I wish that I had noticed it myself previously.
Thanks again for your good help.
Cheers!
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Doc, thank you for your kind response. A pleasure to help. 2.101.32.49 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg I appreciate you too. After the many not so friendly messages I have received here at wikipedia, yours was a joy to receive. Interesting website over there @ bluehounds and greyhounds! Carriearchdale (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Carrie:  Thanks very much for the cupcake and the kind words.  I'll give you a more responsive answer at your talk page.  Cheers!  Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"The activist"[edit]

Yo. I wrote some thoughts about using the term "the activist" for Malcolm X on the Alex Haley talk page, if you're interested. Nothing major or important. Popcornduff (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

List of greyhound routes article[edit]

Doc,

I got your message and edited as much of the article as I could. I'm not an administrator, so I can't change the title of the article to reflect the timetable issue. Feel free to add the route info to the article. I feel that greyhound has been given short shrift compared to Amtrak's articles. Great work on the bluehounds website. I think more people should ride the Hound!

Jay (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I am concerned about your recent edits at the To Kill a Mockingbird article. As a featured article it is considered "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" and yet you have made numerous changes in wording, punctuation, and changes in the previous meaning of the text. The (now retired) editor that wrote this article has written numerous featured articles and writes on a professional level. Furthermore, keep in mind that her article has already been reviewed by other professional--level editors. Unless you consider your work to be outstanding and on the same level as a professional, do you really think that you should be making so many changes to a featured article? Gandydancer (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Date when Haley died is relevant to discussion of his unfinished book[edit]

So what if the date of his death can be found elsewhere in the article?
Obviously the approximate date is relevant to when he stopped working on his (unfinished) book, since that makes clear that he was working on it from the late '70s to the early '90s -- a long time.
Or are you attempting to cover something up about his biography because you don't like the way indisputable facts might reflect on Haley?
Maybe a course in Editing 101 would help.
Daqu (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You asked whether I've tried "to cover something up about his biography because you don't like the way indisputable facts might reflect on Haley".
Exactly what's your point?  Cover up something?  Might reflect on Haley?  To what do you refer?  What do you imply?  What do you mean?
You appear to feel quite confident of yourself.
Regardless of the nature of your objection or motivation, it's not OK for you to express yourself to me or anyone else, at the Wikipedia or elsewhere, as you did to me.
If and when any of us at the Wikipedia find it necessary to disagree with each other or one another, we have a duty to disagree without behaving in a disagreeable way.
In the future please refrain from making such rude, abrasive, impudent, or impertinent comments to others.
Although I continue to take occasional refresher classes and seminars in my work, no, despite your suggestion, I no longer need to take a 101 course in editing.
That's because I'm not a newbie or an untrained or uneducated person; I'm a professional with a handful of credentials and qualifications, including extensive practical experience.  I've long worked as a writer, rewriter, ghostwriter, editor, and proofreader in real life (since 1953), as a professor who has taught grammar, composition, and communication at the college level (since 1977), as a user who has taken part at the Wikipedia (since 2008), and as one who created, owns, and continues to maintain and expand his own website, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds (since 2010).
Cordially and sincerely,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

Hats off![edit]

Hi DocRushing. I always like to see more of the person changing/ reverting my edits. So, a sincere hats off for "Atticus's". I have spent ages trying to make people understand that construction. About 99% can't it. I need to resort to engravings on plaques such as "St. James's" before I get the feeling that something is sinking in ... and not always ... ;-) PS: please see my edit summary on "organised-crime". PS2: I also have very strong and vivid memories of Greyhound (here in South Africa). Have a great Sunday. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Loretta Lynn edits[edit]

Please do not change Loretta Lynn's age at when she got married from 15 to 13, as you didn't explain why you changed it. The source clearly states 15, and many others do as well. If you believe it is 13, talk about it on the talk page. If you didn't mean to change it, than you can ignore this message. Thanks, Corky | Chat? 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Corky:
I see what led to your message.
I share your concern about the frequent changes in Loretta's ages, and I often feel amused about those changes.
Despite what appears to have taken place, I assure you unequivocally that I did not myself change from 15 to 13.
My own changes consist of only exactly what I said in my edit summaries; that is, they consist of mechanical changes in punctuation (several commas and one hyphen).
When I removed the comma after 15, I carefully deleted that one character without touching the age and without touching a 3 key.
For some reason beyond my understanding, the Wikipedia apparently made a spontaneous concurrent reversion of the 15 to the previous 13.
I cannot even begin to explain how or why the computer introduced that reversion of its own, but I absolutely did NOT make that change myself.
Now that I've looked at the article again, I see at least one more place where I'll insert a required but missing comma.
Although I'm a retired professor, I've joyfully returned to teaching part-time; one of my present courses, through a touch of fate, irony, or something else, is remedial English, which I'll meet tomorrow morning.
Best wishes,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
No problem! I didn't think you meant to, but I still had to make sure. Thanks for explaining! Corky | Chat? 00:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)