From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Graduation hat.svg This user is a graduate student in Astrophysics.
AtheismLogo.svg This user is an atheist.
LP This user is Libertarian.
Old violin.jpg This user plays the violin.
5-Humor This user has no problem with laughing at everything, regardless of what others think.
whom This user insists upon using whom wherever it is called for, and fixes the errors of whomever they see.
Latin Plurals: "Data is are..." This user uses "data", "media", "memoranda", "criteria", and "agenda" as the plurals of "datum", "medium", "memorandum", "criterion", and "agendum".
Majority ≠ right This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake.
US vs. UK
This user uses logical quotation marks. Internal punctuation leads to factual errors. It's not a style issue!
ə This user is a Grammar Nazi.
naïve coördinate Naziïsm This user thinks English would be benefitted by a reasonable use of diacriticals
PPlaquecloseup crop.png This user enjoys contributing to Wikipedia without wearing clothes.
LaTeX This user can typeset using LaTeX.
National Public Radio logo.svg This user listens to NPR.
Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
LOTR This user likes the original The Lord of the Rings and vastly prefers it to the dumbed-down, cheapened and oversimplified film trilogy.
The Silmarillion This user not only likes The Lord of the Rings, but The Silmarillion as well.
Et baal.jpg This user believes Tolkien's Balrogs have wings.
Quenya tengwar.png This user writes in Tengwar
tng-2 This user has an intermediate understanding of Tengwar.
Mendelssohn Violin Concerto Icon.png This user loves the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto.
¬AC This user does not believe in the Axiom of Choice
This user knows how to prove that the square root of two is irrational.
This user understands the summation convention.

User:Dtbohrer/Userboxes/Capitol Steps

' This user is covered in bees!
Tetsubin1571.jpg This user drinks tea.
Red Wine Glass.jpg This user drinks wine.
T This user will eat anything that's tasty
en This user is a native speaker of English.
es-2 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel intermedio de español.
Search user languages

Hello Wikipedia, I'm Clay, a grad student in astrophysics at Princeton. I did my undergrad in physics at Harvey Mudd. In addition to science, I'm also quite interested in philosophy and art.

Generally I only edit Wikipedia when I comes across something in the course of my browsing which I know is wrong (many times this is grammatical), think is unclear, or believe is a gap in need of filling. That is to say I prefer not to create articles, but amend or emend existing ones (generally in small ways), and I don't restrict myself to particular areas.

Anyway, if you'd like to contact me, I have this username over most of the internet.

My /Userboxes

A Thought on Style[edit]

Look at [this version of the 2008 Presidential Debates] article. In the "Vice Presidential debate" section, we read, "On the morning of the day that the debate was to take place, McCain said..." Now this sentence could only have been written on the day the debate took place, but before it, because of its slightly convoluted avoidance of presenting the debate as a fact. After the debate in fact took place, it was duly modified to "On the morning of the day of the debate..."

Now I certainly don't want Wikipedia to be forecasting the future, but my question is this: why not just say "this morning", or even "today"? Naturally that doesn't at first glance sound encyclopedic, since no other encyclopedia would ever dream of making so specific a time reference. But Wikipedia is not any other encyclopedia; it's better, infinitely faster to update, and there's no reason why its style shouldn't include relative dates when appropriate.

A better criticism would be, what if the "today" doesn't get updated, thus making the sentence factually wrong? But look at the example above: the circumlocution was clearly going to be updated anyway, and in fact would have been, if not strictly wrong, at least highly misleading had it not been updated. So, in particular, if the person who introduces a relative date takes responsibility to update it, there shouldn't be a problem; current events in progress require many updates anyway.