User talk:Embram

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

AfD nomination of The New York Pizza Connection[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, The New York Pizza Connection, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New York Pizza Connection. Thank you. dicttrshp (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no comments or preference on it. Embram (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"most every ..."[edit]

Actually, "most every ..." is ungrammatical English. --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I still consider "most every" to be acceptable these days, but I have no problem with changing it to the more formal "almost every." I only changed it back (not realizing the reason you changed it) because in "correcting" it, you introduced a number mismatch. Embram (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I overlooked one element to pluralize. And no, "most every" is not acceptable English, not in the past nor these days. --JorisvS (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I must disagree. Changes to grammar like this (involving phrases) become acceptable and even grammatical with use, as long as they do not cause confusion or violate some basic rule of grammar. "Most every" is grammatical, though informal, in American English. See link, for example: http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/most_1 . That said, I still do no object to your changing it to the more formal almost every, especially to appease our readers who are less comfortable with American English variations compared to British English. Embram (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
So it is a dialectal feature. Despite that I'm quite familiar with American English, I can't remember ever having heard it, though it could be the case that I didn't take notice of it when I encountered it. In any case, it is not a construction that is acceptable in formal texts like an encyclopedia. --JorisvS (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Embram (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Kenneth Rand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

David_FLXD (Talk) 10:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

DS alert climate change[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Climate change[edit]

Hi, the alert in the prior thread is an FYI sort of thing and implies nothing but FYI. I regularly pass them out to new eds on those pages. That said, I'm troubled by what appears to be a failure to assume good faith (see WP:AGF and WP:ARBCC#Princples) expressed in this remark. If you think the WP:Reliable sources support different article text than other editors, please don't spit on the other editors. Instead, use WP:Dispute resolution to seek WP:Consensus based on the WP:Reliable sources. Persistent denigration of your co-editors will likely lead to formal complaints and you're maybe being blocked. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh right... I thought your name was familiar. We've plowed this road before.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not disparaging the editor; I merely asked him to elaborate on what he meant. Characterizing this as "spitting" is hyperbole and incomprehensible to me. I made my comments on a talk page, and I expressed my concern that some of the editing in general seems to be biased. Is it now the policy of Wikipedia that even using a talk page to question the editing is grounds for sanctions? This is extremely chilling to open discourse. And yet, you seem to have no problem in failing to assume good faith on my part.
That said, if you think I should express my concerns in a different way I would be glad to do so. I vaguely remember the 2013 incident (this topic is not one I follow closely on Wikipedia), but if it's forbidden to even question the editing practices, then I won't. - Embram (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Questioning article content based on reliable sources is welcome! However, with these words you characterize other editors -
  • "the "gatekeeper" editors of this article, who are very quick and thorough in eliminating any change to this article that might indicate that it is not certain that global warming is mostly or entirely caused by human activity..."
  • Climate pages in wikipedia are "apparently heavily policed by the editors for orthodoxy"
Hard to reconcile these comments with WP:AGF or your "not guilty" plea in the first phrase of your reply. Some things don't change, apparently. But since you ask, if you disagree with article content I repeat my prior advice - Focus on content by discussion of sources rather than editors, and use WP:Dispute resolution instead of meekly phrased swipes at others.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
To start with, what you somewhat unkindly characterize as my "not guilty plea" refers to my comments to the individual editor, Dave. I agree with you that my other comments regarding the editors in general were indeed critical, but as far as "swipes at others," I would say it's less of a swipe than your "Some things don't change, apparently," which is snide and accusatory, as well as being directed at me personally. Can you see that? That sort of thing is not necessary when you're talking to another editor directly (in contrast to my critical comments, which referred to editors in general and were not directed at any particular person or persons). Anything I do here is indeed done in good faith, and I'm always willing to work with anyone. I hope you will consider that I am acting in good faith as well, and not be accusatory or take personal swipes at me.
A word about what I do on Wikipedia: I am not a maven (expert) like you who knows all the ins and outs and details of every rule and procedure. Almost all of what I do on here is to merely add and/or correct information based on sources that can be cited, correct grammar and language, and little else. I don't tend to editorialize. If I do anything in a way I'm not supposed to, all you have to do is talk to me about it and I'm happy to comply. I have never had this kind of problem in any other area of Wikipedia. This is (I think) only the second period of time I have posted anything in the climate area, and each time I have ended up feeling as though I was hit on the head with Thor's hammer for having trespassed on sacred ground. I understand what you say about always assuming good faith, and will no longer make any critical statements about editing, but I would like to be treated in that way as well, and not be made to feel that I'm being personally attacked. - Embram (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What can I say? You seem to have wrapped up the 2013 ANI with meekly phrased swipes at other eds, and it's what I heard today, hence my belief that this thing at least, has not changed. If my perception, right or wrong, bothers you let's do something to prevent such misunderstandings in the future.... just focus on reliable sources to discuss article content, and using dispute resolution when needed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine with me, and I will attempt to always do so. But meanwhile, you don't need to use a shotgun when a word will do. - Embram (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)