User talk:Tdw

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

Welcome!

Hello, Tdw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 17:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Better for Everyone[edit]

So, all told, we managed to do what Wikipedia is all about. The end result is better than what we started with, despite the bumps along the way. Hopefully we won't have to run down such an ragged road to get there in the future, but I'm happy with progress, despite how we got there. Maybe we'll bump into eachother again later. For now, good luck with your projects. Consequentially 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

YAPM (Yet Another Page Move)[edit]

You told Marco79 exactly what I myself wanted to tell him, but I didn't have the time this morning. As for the intro, your solution is pretty close to what I have in mind; those long lists of nations and organizations belong somewhere else (British English, American English, International English) (and how can you say that Japan uses AmE or the Netherlands uses BrE? *Americans* use AmE and *the British* use BrE! Other nations may follow Br or Am spelling, conventions, terminology, etc.) One thing, perhaps the main article should not have a list of its spinoffs, as you find the relative links en route, while you read, in their natural contexts. --JackLumber 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions for the intro: I would retain a brief hint of the existence of different British dialects (actually, Britain has probably more dialects than North America and Australia combined!). And I guess it's pretty safe to retain the paragraph about international communication (but not the part about the role of English as an additional language---since it can be found at English language). And I would change "does not cover" to "does not attempt to cover"---to suggest that it would be too hard an undertaking. --JackLumber 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I just made a few changes to your Intro 2 draft---take a gander. JackLumber, 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: new words[edit]

And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn. -- The undertaker in his midnight suit says to the masked man, "Ain't you cute!" -- The guilty undertaker sighs. Yes, we use undertaker---Bob Dylan does at least... And we also use mortician with the same meaning. Some of the to-be-added words are discussed just below the list, and many cases are pending, as you have probably noticed. As for bomb, see the very American and British English differences#business (another section that could use cleanup, btw)... JackLumber 20:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New Words & More[edit]

For starters, when I make a mistake or a slip, you should not post it on the talk page, but rather be bold and fix it yourself :-) I queried the British National Corpus and found out that undertaker outnumbers mortician 32:1, maybe we can add mortician to the American words. Thanks for your job with the redirects, but I guess you might want to back me up: check it out yourself. -- JackLumber 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. "Australian words" is not really a "list," and I decided to name the Canadian page "Canadian words" for consistency. Thanks for updating the links; the existing links to List of Canadian/Australian words are pretty much irrelevant, so I don't think we need to change them---if the redirects get deleted we can update the links afterward, otherwise they will just stay put (although I really can't see the point of keeping them. Go figure, as we say!). You're doing a great job with the intro---we can make a full-fledged introductory section (titled perhaps "Historical background") with your notes. JackLumber 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we (or rather, you...) are on the right track (see also below...); maybe just the last part about regional things within each country could stand some minor fine-tuning. As for "commonweath English," my posture is explained on the talk page thereof; however the term can stay put for now, given that it can sometime function as a kind of shorthand. --JackLumber 13:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking the Train[edit]

People too often change their mind and get carried away. Until the late C19 Americans were in love with the railroad. Enter the automobile & the plane... and 50 years ago the railroad suddenly fell into oblivion. *7,000* miles of trackage in New England, more than half abandoned. Hopefully, the railway tracks of yesterday will be the rail trails of tomorrow. Luckily, as you can see from my Userpage, I also enjoy backpacking... --JackLumber 20:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now "trackage" is a new one on me! We would just say "track". -- TrevorD 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"Trackage" can refer collectively to railway tracks (as in my above paragraph), as those owned by a particular company, but also to the [charge for the] right of a railroad company to use the tracks of another company. Btw, I have the impression that "line" and "track" are not used the same way in UK & US. I'll do further research... --JackLumber 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

F.t.[edit]

OK, definitely not a standard abbreviation! Stands for fine-tune (an Americanism, btw)...

No, f.t. is not an Americanism, is a JackLumber™ coinage; but I often tend to refer to a word *coined* in the U.S. as an Americanism---while non-Americans (and non-specialists) more often use the word "Americanism" to refer to a word that is considered or perceived as typical of American speech and writing. The verb fine-tune is an Americanism in the sense that it originated in the U.S. --JackLumber 13:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

from LessHeard vanU[edit]

I have read your user page, and would comment that we share a love of ellipses (ellipsi?)... and little else, it would seem. I am the type of editor that tends to bash it down and tart it up later - or let somebody else do the tarting. In other words; thank you for your help.LessHeard vanU 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

ISO 4217[edit]

Just to let you know, I partially reverted your edits to this article. The reason I feel it is better to write European Union, is because its the official currency of the EU as a whole (yes, regionally, that varies, but as a whole...) and its regulated by an EU institution (ECB). Also, its code EUR has the EU referring to European Union, as thats who reserved "EU". So in short, i changed it to:

49. EUR Euro (European Union, see eurozone) - RedHot 15:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Durrington-on-Sea[edit]

Hi Trevor, I'm very sorry that I haven't responded until now - I completely missed your messages when looking at my talk page somehow! Anyway, I think you're absolutely right, the place should be Durrington not Durrington-on-Sea. Creating a stub to that effect is probably a good move, if you're up for that. I'll change the "to do" list. Waggers 09:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Words[edit]

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists of Words over the interpretation of policy regarding lists of words. As a fairly recent contributor to [List of British words not widely used in the United States], you might wish to add to the debate, as it affects several AfDs going on, and a current Deletion Review. Thanks. WLD 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Summer time[edit]

You totally misunderstood the reason for my edit. See Talk:Daylight saving time#Worldwide view. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List of UTC offsets[edit]

Hi, re your message the list is supposed to provide an easy overview of countries/territories by sovereign state, rather than needing to be an in-depth assessment of the politcal status of various territories, with numerous notes added. That said, it's something you've raised so maybe a brief line in the intro text would be useful, setting out that areas are listed according to ultimate government, if they are self-governing to an extent. Eldumpo (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)