User talk:UglowT

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

Welcome to my talk page!

UglowT, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi UglowT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afghans in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2011 census (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rudky 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:
  • ]) of [[Ukraine]]. Population was 4,942 at the [[Ukrainian Census (2001)|2001 Ukrainian census]]). The town is the resting place of the Polish poet [[Aleksander Fredro]], who was buried in a local
  • was purchased by the Fredro family ([[Boncza coat of arms]]). Until the [[Partitions of Poland]]) Rudki belonged to [[Ruthenian Voivodeship]]. In 1772, it was annexed by the [[Habsburg Empire]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Replacing "as of" with "in"[edit]

Most of them are fine. However, the transclusion of {{As of}} (such as {{As of|1995}}, there were 50 minority-language newspapers published in Xinjiang, including the Qapqal News, the world's only Xibe-language newspaper.) automatically places such articles into (or sub-categories), which assists editors whose speciality is to update outdated statements. Needless to say, this is particular problematic with population statistics. Please desist in this case. TLA 3x ♭ 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've changed it back. UglowT (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sikkim 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 [[Vajrayana Buddhism]]. Sikkim's economy is largely dependent on agriculture and tourism, and {{as of|2012|alt=in 2012} the state has [[List of Indian states by GDP|the third-smallest GDP among

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As of[edit]

Why are you changing the use of "as of", as here? It is normal English.[1]. You appear to be making this change in dozens of articles -- why? Please stop and please revert yourself. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's awful English. Terrible. "As of" essentially means "from", meaning a duration. Some people, however, reckon it means a moment in time. It doesn't. UglowT (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No. This is accepted English usage. It is as common as common can be. See the diff to Merriam Webster, above. See wp:ASOF. Please stop. I see that even after my prior note, you've continued. Please self-revert. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Very well, I'll stop until we iron this out.

I'm not convinced your interpretation of the meaning of "as of" is "accepted English usage". And nor does your argument unequivocally reconcile with the definition given in Merriam Webster. I'll have to wait to check a print copy of Merriam Webster, but my Random House Webster says this: "as of, beginning on; on and after; from: This price is effective as of June 23."

There is quite a difference between a duration and a moment in time. To use "as of" to mean the latter is incorrect or at best poor style.

The instances I have changed have been for the better. UglowT (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Montanabw, please continue the conversation here.

I'm afraid that website does not count as an established authority. Quite the contrary. UglowT (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems to me you are arguing with each other but you are both saying the same thing. "As of" means the date that something starts or ends. It should not be used otherwise. Has it? I haven't inspected any of the edits in question. Pardon me for barging in. --John (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, "as of" to indicate a moment in time is common, accepted usage. The fact that we have a maintenance template with those words, used by editors who work to update outdated information, confirms that its usage on Wikipedia is widespread and accepted here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Clearly we are talking about style here, and about idiom. While I quite accept what you are saying, there is something jarring about As of November 22, 1963, John F Kennedy was assassinated. Clearly it is not right in all cases, and neither is it wrong in all cases. I wonder where would be the most productive place to take this forwards? I bet User:Tony1 would have a view on this. --John (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
John -- I supplied two diffs in my first entry, at the start of this thread. Perhaps you might take a look -- rather than provide examples of what is not at issue. It only confuses the discussion to not look at what is being discussed, and then start a tangent as to what is not at issue. Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This is more fundamentally about meaning than style. My Webster certainty doesn't support Epeefleche's view. And nor do my British dictionaries. But it will depend on Merriam. Could someone with a print copy of Merriam Webster please reproduce its definition for "as of"? I'm sure someone must have one to hand. And if anyone has a Canadian dictionary, could you do the same? Thanks. UglowT (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In the context under discussion, "as of", followed by a date, followed by some data that changes over time, indicates that the data was accurate then, but probably not at other times. Assassination dates do not change, but population statistics do. "As of 1960, the population of Dallas was XXX,XXX, according to the U.S. Census" is perfectly acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I did of course look at the one diff you provided, Epeefleche. The other link is an invitation to browse UglowT's contributions. I have not yet had the time or inclination to do this, although I may do so. My point is that this discussion isn't about editor conduct but about the finer points of style. A dictionary definition is a useful data point, but it is not always conclusive in these discussions. Do you know what synonyms are? --John (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh. You said "I haven't inspected any of the edits in question." I took you to mean what you said.
In the very first diff, as you can see, for example Uglow changed "As of 2006, x% of the population was white" to "In 2006, x% of the population was white ..." That's the nature of a great bulk of the changes. Rather than the tangent innapposite hypothetical (appeared nowhere in what we are discussing?) example you gave. The original chose usage of "as of" uses the phrase in the normal way "as of" is used in the English language (and on Wikipedia). There's no reason for the dozens (hundreds) of changes Uglow has made, under the misunderstanding that this usage is "awful English." Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
If UglowT is no longer making these edits and is instead discussing it here, I am ok with that and so should you be. I agree with you that this is not a matter that lends itself to mass replacement. I too love to make stylistic adjustments, and I have my own bugbears. "As of" has certainly triggered my instincts in the past. I think it is over-used on Wikipedia. I am sorry you did not like my made-up example. Can you choose a really good example of one of UglowT's edits that damaged an article? You didn't answer my question, so I'll answer it for you; there are no true synonyms and there is nearly always an idiomatic "best" way to express something. --John (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
My first point was that you said you hadn't inspected any example. And then said, when I suggested it would be a good idea for you to do so, that "of course" you had.
And that rather than focus on the above first diff which you read, you instead concocted an example, with irrelevant complications that were not present in the current series of revisions (best I can tell).
My next issue is that Uglow has made a series of changes without good reason, and the language he changed was perfectly fine. He did this, apparently, under a good-faith misunderstanding.
As to whether Uglow's edits damage an article -- I assume that is the meaning of your POINTY (but it must not be POINTY, because we assume good faith) question above about synonyms, that misses the point. We have alternate acceptable date formats ... numerical and part-word ... but we defer to the first editor's format, rather than change everything to numerical, or everything to part-word date format. What is disruptive is changing first-used-acceptable-formats (en masse in this instance) because ILIKEIT. When the original format was fine. We would also, btw, I expect take the same tack if one were to en masse change every instance of will to shall, or shall to will, under a misguided view that either was "terrible English." Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. --John (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Epeefleche is correct here. I found this source rather quickly, but there are others. It makes the overall point that "as of" does reference time, and there are places where it is the most suitable way to phrase someting. But more to the issue at hand, Uglow offers ZERO sources for his/her assertion that it is "terrible English." No, it is standard use in certain contexts. We can say "at two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F, or "as of two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F" with about equal validity, depending on the nuance needed; we would not say "from two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F" - that's just bizarre. Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • See also the comment here of user:RexxS: "We even have a template {{as of}} that is "used to mark potentially dated statements", so I'm pretty certain the phrase has a real use on Wikipedia." Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Montanabw, you've got the idea. It's a matter of idiom and those can be fine calls. I greatly prefer "at two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F, to "as of two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F"; perhaps it's an ENGVAR issue to some degree? Epeefleche, I already did see that discussion which was what brought me here. I think we are all in agreement that "the phrase has a real use on Wikipedia." The discussion that needs to happen is what its proper use is and isn't. --John (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Most of the examples I saw and fixed were related to census numbers, where "as of" works to convey the nuance of "it was the number at the time but it is probably going to change". For the record, "at the 20xx census" is not standard, http://www.census.gov uses "in the 20xx census" and in a google search, "what was the population of foo at the 2010 census" gets hits, but "what was the population of foo IN the 2010 census" gets you an answer in google itself. There were some uses of "as of" that Uglow rightly got rid of, others were on the line, but we have hundreds and hundreds of articles here, many "fixed" with a clunky "at." Frustrating. As for the other example, I would vary depending on the nuance to be conveyed: "it is quite hot today, at two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F." but "the temperature is rising rapidly, as of two 'o clock, it was 100 degrees F." Montanabw(talk) 16:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Agree w/Monanabw, w/regard to the vast majority of those I've reviewed being changes that were based only it would appear on Uglow's minority view that the use of "as of" is terrible English. And that a very high percentage were census related uses. Though Uglow had only made these changes at the rate of dozens-a-day, we have over 60,000 uses of "as of" in census-mentioning articles. I, for one, am glad that Uglow finally paused in his mass reversions to allow this discussion. I think Uglow's mass reverts are a reflection of what we now agree from the above is a minority view as to whether the phrase is acceptable. I would urge self-revert where reversion has not taken place.

Can you please stop reverting my edits? It is most improper. This conversation has not finished whatsoever. There is still a long way to go yet. I am busy today. It must be taken into consideration that people have lives that don't involve Wikipedia. Reverting my edits en masse is extremely premature. Please save everybody's time by desisting. UglowT (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, you must wait until all the evidence has been examined and a proper debate has been had, rather than jumping the gun in this way. I will reply to what has been said when I have more time, but until then these actions must stop. UglowT (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I have watched consensus develop over a few days now and it is not in your favor. Per WP:BRD it is the person CHANGING the article (i.e. you) who has the WP:BURDEN of justifying your actions. Given the hundreds and hundreds of edits you have made, particularly to add the clunky "at", it is clear that it was time for the repairs to begin. I did keep a few of your edits, and several I did not rollback but rather made minor manual edits. You don't get to screw things up and then let your errors be the status quo until everyone convinces you that you are incorrect. I only undid the edits of July 5 (and a few for the 4th) and those alone took me hours. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Montanabw. All these bold edits should be reverted to the status quo as a normal part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and the discussion can continue. The fact that the "as of" template has been in use for six years is strong evidence that the usage enjoys wide support among editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
We have thousands of edits by Uglow, dating back to June 5 if not earlier. Many are not suitable for rollback, as there were useful edits along with the mass removal of "as of" - in many cases Uglow made appropriate changes from present to past tense, and in some settings (nod to John) "as of" didn't really help either. This is going to take forever, I did about 1 -1/2 days' worth. "At the foo census" is worse than as of. "At the time of" can work, "In the foo census" can work, but frankly, "as of" worked most of the time. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, all, for the collegial and harmonious way you have conducted yourselves. UglowT, these edits should not have been made in the absence of some sort of central consensus, and it is quite proper if other editors are scrutinising your edits now and adjusting them, in some cases back to the status quo ante. I agree it would have also been inappropriate to mass rollback them. WT:WTA might be a useful venue for a larger discussion on the content issue? --John (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)