User talk:Auto movil

Velcome to the Vikipedia

Here are some links what I find useful:

• Wikipedia:Fleer
• Wikipedia:Udo
• Wikipedia:Serum Amygdalism
• Wikipedia:Elastophonemic
• Wikipedia:Ring Ring Bananaphone
• Wikipedia:Civet

Feel free to ask me anything what the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like suchforth: wiki! wiki! wiki! wiki!

Cheers, Auto movil

Nominating Featured Article Candidates

Hi, just noticed that you'd nominated Oceanic Whitetip Shark as a Featured Article Candidate. It's usual for people nominating just to include a couple of remarks about why they think it should be featured, and sign their nomination; I don't suppose you'd be able to add this? Thanks! — Matt 02:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I got your note on my talk page. Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. VV[[]] 03:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: Nominating Featured Article Candidates

Boy, that was a good article until everyone started hitting it with waffle irons and jumping on it with pogo sticks. I note this in private. Auto movil

Fake etymology, and minor edits

Hi! Re your recent changes on Fake etymology, I think you may have missed the point of the article — fake etymologies are invented (and thus incorrect) etymologies, so it's not necessary to establish that each example is incorrect.

Also, please be careful with the "minor edit" checkbox — I noticed you've essentially rewritten Choronzon from scratch in a long series of minor edits. Rewriting from scratch is admirable, don't get me wrong — but since the point of flagging as a minor edit is to make it not appear to those who've excluded minor edits from their watchlist or Recent Changes it's usually a good idea to avoid marking any changes to article content as minor. Minor changes tend to be spelling corrections, copy editing, fixing broken wiki syntax, that sort of thing, and a big series of minors that substantially changes an article might raise some red flags.

Hrm, I see now that Shit was the same sort of thing but without the minor flag. Don't forget that you can preview an article before saving. — mendel ☎ 03:43, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

And now on folk etymology too. Your edit left the article with:

A folk etymology in the linguistic sense is an accurate explanation of the origins of a fake etymology or a misunderstanding of the history of the word or phrase.

Reduce that for a second: "A folk etymology is an explanation of the origins of a fake etymology". No, that doesn't make sense at all; a folk etymology is an etymology, and thus it explains the origin of a word or phrase. The etymology of "kitty-corner" is a folk etymology; that folk etymology explains the origin of "kitty-corner" and not the origin of people misunderstanding what "cater" meant. I realize this sounds pedantic, but I don't see any reason for being imprecise on something that a great percentage of the population regulary get wrong. — mendel ☎ 21:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Eh, we're not so much tangling now. When I saw one of your first edits on fake etymology that appended "No" after one paragraph and "That's a load of bullshit" after another I wasn't sure if it was well-intentioned, and when I saw a lot of substantial edits marked "minor" I was a bit suspicious, but that's taken care of. Right now I'm more concerned with getting folk etymology unambiguous, because a couple weeks ago it was awful — pretty much identical to "fake etymology".

I think we're in agreement that that's not what we want, but that's what laymen think it means. So if we don't want that, why not explain exactly what it means according to the discipline that coined the term? To "explain the origin of a fake etymology" just doesn't make any sense. "Bob came up with an acronymic expansion of 'Fuck' and told Sue"? That's the explanation of the origin of a fake etymology, and they'll all be identical — someone thought of it and spread it around. The key bit about folk etymology is that even though it was based on a mistake it's part of the real history of a word, and that's what I think most people miss. It's easy for someone to understand that since "fuck" wasn't an acronym then the acronym story is a fake etymology, but it's not as easy for them to get that if it became "fucq" over the years because of the fake etymology (and, uh, the Queen :-) that the acronym part would be part of "fucq"'s accurate etymology.

Hrm, now that I think of it, it doesn't make much sense to say that folk etymology explains the origins of a word, either — it's a process, not a thing, which might be why that wording's sort of odd there. Yeah, I think that makes more sense. "Kitty-corner" has an etymology, not a folk etymology; part of that etymology is where "cater" became "kitty" through the process of folk etymology, but "cater" becoming "kitty" isn't a folk etymology. Does that sound right to you?

If it does, I'd propose the following:

• Strike the whole "A folk etymology is" paragraph, and replace it with something like

Folk etymology, then, is the process by which a fake etymology becomes a legitimate part of the history of a word or phrase.

• In fake etymology, replace the "folk etymologies, which are (presumably)..." with something like

folk etymology, a process by which a word or phrase develops based on a fake etymology.

What do you think of that? Having spent a night or two fixing all of the folk/fake etymology confusion in the articles that linked to Folk etymology, though, I'd like to at least make sure that it's clear to Wikipedians.

The Agincourt thing is fine, I guess. I don't meant to contest the accuracy; I know it's a lark, but it just sits odd to have the explanation followed by "This is untrue". Maybe the explanation should go in V sign, and Fake etymology should just link to the articles that talk about fake etymologies like folk etymology does for its examples.

It's really nothing personal, now, though I started down that road at first — the combination of the minor edits, the style of the first changes you made, and then you showing up all over my watchlist after I mentioned it seemed like a red flag at first but I'm satisfied it was just coincidence.

Oh, and another wiki tip: you can add a signature with datestamp with four tildes (~~~~) — it's conventional to sign comments on talk pages like that. — mendel ☎ 15:05, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Folk/fake etymology, clamato

Clamato ended up on my to-do list after an IRC discussion (not in #wikipedia) about the absurdity of adding clam juice to, well, anything, really. I found a neat history while trying to find out why someone would do that, and thought it'd fit nicely into an article.

As for folk and fake etymologies, the difference is a lot bigger than you'd think. "Fake etymology" is easy: an etymology (history of a word of phrase) that isn't true but is popularly believed. It's really just a purported etymology that doesn't pan out.

Where it gets tricky is that the "etymology" in "folk etymology" isn't talking about the same meaning of "etymology" as "fake etymology" is. In "folk etymology", "etymology" refers to the process of change itself, and not the historical account of the change.

In "fake etymology", the etymology is. A synonym for "fake etymology" might be "contrived history". In "folk etymology", the etymology happens. A synonym for it might be "modification based on popular belief". Fake etymologies are countable — "fuck" has at least two fake etymologies (the acronym and the archers). Folk etymology isn't countable; both "rake-hell" and "kitty-corner" developed via (one process called) folk etymology.

Does that make it clearer? I really wish the terms didn't look like they were meant to be opposites. I'd never use "fake etymology" outside of Wikipedia; even when I was fixing a lot of the articles that linked to "folk etymology" but talked about wrong but popular etymologies I linked to [[Fake etymology|popular etymology]]. I'd almost go so far as to say that "fake etymology" isn't so much a concept as it is merely the word "etymology" with the adjective "fake". — mendel ☎ 21:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I figured that instead of talking to you and Pasquale about folk/fake etymology on your talk pages, that we should probably be discussing it on Talk:Folk etymology. I just summarized what I've said to you and Pasquale there; we should probably continue the discussion there so that anyone else interested in the article knows it is going on. :-)

Back on the subject of squeezing clams into a glass: the Bloody Caesar is a quintessential Canadian summer drink (although I can't stand them myself, but I don't like tomato juice much, let alone tomato juice with clam, let alone tomato juice with clam, tabasco, and Worcestershire sauce, even if there is vodka in it), so Clamato itself is pretty unremarkable Canada-wide. I imagine using it for something other than a Caesar would be as uncommon as anywhere else. As for its history, give [1] a read — that's the article I mention in my to-do list, that made me want to write a Clamato article in the first place! — mendel ☎ 16:05, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Procedure

"Kevin, it's not personal; it's procedural."

I agree. I initally thought you were a troll, this is true. I was not overly concerned though until you delete the {{Nonsense}} tag. That sent up a ton of red flags for me. That is the wrong procedure. The correct thing to do was to put a comment on the talk page that you were still working on it, then continue to work on the article. The first administrator that came along would have seen your comment and then removed the {{Nonsense}} tag.

Then when you blanked the talk page, I was even more concerned. That is even moreso the incorrect procedure. You should have simply added your comments and then continued to work on the article. If the article got to a place where it was no longer a candiate for speedy deltion or VFD then it would not be a problem and it would neither be deleted nor moved.

Finally, as far as you making claims about my level of contribution on the vfd page that were not true, I don't appreciate that. I think that most of your contributions are of a fairly low quality, but I've never said anything to that effect in a public forum. Clamato is a very poor encyclopedia artice (in my opinion) but I've never put it, or you, down. Please refrain from intimating that I am a deletionist who doesn't contribute to the Wikipedia project as both of these claims are patently untrue. In fact, I've saved more than one article from VFD by adding to it. If you really feel that it's not personal but procedural please stop spreading untruth about me. Kevin Rector 19:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest? (re:Procedure)

Just to keep the facts straight, the word 'nonsense' appeared in the text box minutes after I began the article. It was like, 'How odd. That shouldn't be here.' When it appeared again, I left it and found a speedy-delete tag on the page. This was not erased.

As votes for deletion appeared, I wiped them and left a note in their place saying that the page was in the process of being written, and sent Kevin (above) a message saying to please come back and judge the article when it was, in fact, an article, rather than two sentences of an article.

Kevin (above) restored everything but my note on the talk page, wiped my message on his talk page, and went into 'I am unable to admit I'm wrong' mode, ignoring requests to stop marking things for deletion. Hilarity ensued.

Rather than deleting his comment (as he deleted mine), I leave it here as testimony that my contributions are of a fairly low quality, and that Clamato is a very poor encyclopedia artice [sic]. Auto movil 21:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

G'day

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have replied there. Andrewa 19:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Demon

Thank you for your accurate and clarifying edits at this entry. --Wetman 09:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stratocaster

I reverted your edits on Stratocaster because material was deleted yet it was marked as a minor edit. According to Wikipedia:Minor_edit, marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behaviour, even more so if it involves the deletion of some text. Please reconsider your changes, and fill in the summaries when you do. Icd 08:35, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The change was removing a list of 'famous Stratocaster players' that had been pasted into a paragraph where it didn't belong. If you want to include favorite Stratocaster players, please add them to the existing list at the bottom of the article. Auto movil 15:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note to all: In general, when I write an article, it stays written -- my watchlist rarely shows a substantitive change in a major piece of text. This is, I think, because the text is pretty good and people like it.

However, the watchlist shows a lot of links added, lists of things appended and interspersed, and (recently) people trying to get their own names into articles such as Hardcore punk -- where presumably they'll finally have the worldwide recognition they always deserved. I monitor that fairly strictly on several articles, and don't always signal my changes well. I am, in fact, a notably sloppy, piecemeal editor who wades around in chaos until everything gets pulled together in the end.

If I've deleted something you've added, it's 100% not personal, 100% not because I'm being overprotective of an article (I rejoice over good edits and additions), and probably only 50% cursory -- especially if it's a self-reference or a mention of a favorite band, guitarist, oyster, sausage, mythological personage, et al., who's included because it seems (to me) to be one's favorite, and not because it's objectively lacking from the article. Sometimes I'm over-hasty. I'll try to signal changes better in the future, and I thank Icd for issuing a mild smack on that account. Auto movil 15:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The latest version looks much better now. That paragraph did look very awkward with a laundry list of guitarists jammed in it. However I am glad to have the list retained, I think the attraction of the Strat is 10% what it looks and sounds like and 90% who has played it. Icd 00:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please review official policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Calling other editors right-wing zealots is not acceptable. --Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is, and you're actually, since I think of it, a piece of shit fuckwad. How dare you post this on my page? Auto movil 01:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)