User talk:Eric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Eric's talkpage
Wikipedia:Babel
enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
fr-3Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.
de-3Dieser Benutzer hat sehr gute Deutschkenntnisse.
it-1Questo utente può contribuire con un livello semplice di italiano.
es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
Search user languages

Patsy Cline[edit]

I'd like explanation on your comments regarding something I deleted on Patsy Cline's page. I removed cause of death and added it in with location of death because cause of death isn't an option for a musical artist's Quick Facts box. Do you not observe your edits after you make them? I'm wondering. It doesn't show up. It serves no purpose. I did nothing wrong in removing something that doesn't show up. I was trying to think of a way that it could. There is no need to intimidate and threaten. I respond very well to positive, friendly feedback, and that's what should be used when communicating with one another. I hope that the mistake can be fixed. Otherwise, I will remove it again. Thanks. Clarawolfe (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My misunderstanding, abetted by your chaotic editing and failure to use edit summaries. Any threat or intimidation you may have perceived is entirely your own invention. Eric talk 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm over it. I've never been described as chaotic before. I'm flattered. Usually the medication cancels that, but the Lithium must be rendered powerless when I'm on Wikipedia. Dungeons and Dragons at my house next week? Yes...it's that obvious. Clarawolfe (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Translation help[edit]

Hi - sorry to bother you. Quite awhile ago, you helped me with some translation for an article that I've been working on in my sandbox. The article is about a French animated short film called Le Building. This whole past year has been kind of crazy for me, and so I still haven't moved the article from my sandbox into the mainspace. There are only a few more additions that I need to make, but it's been slow going, since some of the sources are in French - and I don't speak French. I posted a request for help at the French WikiProject over a month ago - no one's gotten back to me though. The source that I would need help with translating [1] is a little bit longer than the ones from earlier, but there's a second source [2] (with much of the same material) that Google translate actually does a pretty good job with. I could use this second source instead - the only problem is that I'm not entirely sure whether the second source qualifies as RS. It's an interview with the filmmaker, and the website that publishes it seems to be affiliated with a magazine in some way. So I'm inclined to treat it as a quality source. But it would be helpful to have someone fluent in the language look over the site, just to make sure. I know that it was a long time ago that we had last talked and totally understand if you don't have the time to help out right now. But I just wanted to ask, since no one else has gotten back to me on this. --Jpcase (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi JP- Well 3dvf, according to their "about us" page ("a propos", bottom left), has been around since 2000 and has 30,000 users. It's a business, and pretty spastic with ads, but my sense of it from poking around the site is that it's legit. (RS = reliable source, yes?) That said, the author of the interview piece is given only as a site username, which wouldn't look as encyclopedic to this old curmudgeon as Le Monde. Are you saying that the Monde piece didn't fare well in Google Translate? Eric talk 02:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I finally tried Translate, and I was amazed at how well it translated the Monde piece. I could easily go through it and fix the errors if you like. Here it is:

My dream was to come to the United States to do animation, but I lacked a specialization. I entered the third year at the Gobelins and came out major of my promotion. I had the opportunity, along with other comrades, to make a short film, entitled The Building, intended to be screened at the Annecy Animation Festival. On the day the jury met, I knew that many animation professionals would be there, starting with Shelley Page, the European representative of Dreamworks Animation. In the corridor where I was waiting for the results, I see her heading towards me and handing me her business card. She invited me the next day at lunch and, at the table, told me that the studio wanted to hire me. Going out of the Goblins was a tremendous asset. In her eyes, she was the best animation school in the world, and I felt how much she benefited from exceptional training, of which she had only to reap the fruits for her employer. It took me nine months to get a work visa. Meanwhile, my short film toured the festivals and won several awards. I went to Dreamworks in June 2006. If I had been able to get conditions equivalent to those offered by the Americans, I would have stayed in France, but that was never the case. I was signed for a four-year contract. I know that in France I would have found myself begging for a CDD. I have absolutely no time in the United States, to say the least. I became the youngest Dreamworks supervisor. I started on Dragons. Afterwards, I supervised the animation of the main character of Chat Potté. And there, the studio has just promoted me head of character animation on the penguins of the Madagascar suite. In France, when I was with my classmates, I understood that it would take me a lot of time to take responsibility in the field of animation. Dreamworks systematically takes the best. I do not think we realize the importance of the investment, especially as employers have to justify to the US immigration services that they are recruiting exceptional items that they would not be able to find at home . The working week at Dreamworks is more busy than in France - 50 hours a week, which can become 70 as soon as we fall behind on the production of a film. Nevertheless, the studio sets reasonable objectives for the animators, which is on average three seconds of animation per week. It is the rhythm necessary to produce a quality animation.

Eric talk 03:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a ton helping out with both of these! Google Translate usually works well enough for me to follow the basic overview of an article, but since I'm planning on using some quotes, I want to make sure that everything reads smoothly. When he says, "I entered the third year at the Gobelins and came out major of my promotion", do you know what that might mean? I believe that the person writing (Staphylas) was valedictorian - would that be a possible translation? The username as author is the main reason that I wasn't sure about 3dvf as a source - but looking at the website's other interviews, it seems that most of them have all all been uploaded by the same user. So my guess is that "shadows44" is simply the username for a 3DVF staff member - which would put my reservations at ease. If everything else about the website seems more or less legit, then I'll treat it as a reliable source (RS). For the author field, I could just write something like "3DVF staff member". --Jpcase (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No prob, glad to help when I can! Yes, I'd translate that sentence "I entered Gobelins in the (or my) third year and finished at the top of the class." FYI, "CDD" is temporary or fixed-term job. There are a couple funky hiccups in the Google translation, so don't hesitate to ping me if you're thinking of pulling any other quotes from there.
I agree re 3dvf--I think it's common practice to skip the author parameter in the {{Cite web}} template (wrap in <ref>...</ref> for in-line use). Eric talk 21:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong in stating that the Civilizing mission took place in the fifteenth century or affirm that there are contemporary affirmations related to the civilizing mission?[edit]

What's wrong in stating that the Missão civilizadora took place in the fifteenth century or affirm that there are contemporary affirmations related to the civilizing mission?

189.100.80.196 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

The changes were sloppy and not explained. The place for this discussion is the article's talkpage. I'm moving it there, and changing the section name. Eric talk 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.[edit]

You asked for it, you got it. You cannot troll other people without getting some backlash. --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Danke für Ihre anhaltend hilfreiche Zusammenarbeit! Gut gemacht!...und...Bravo! Eric talk 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

interaction ban[edit]

It is clear from your recent behavior that you are engaging in a vendetta against Edelseider. You have been asked repeatedly to respond as to whether or not you would voluntarily agree to an interaction ban, and have failed to reply in any way. In my role as an administrator I am therefore imposing a "final warning" condition on this account.

User:Eric is indefinitely banned from interacting with User:Edelseider. Failure to abide by this restriction will be met with escalating blocks

This will be recorded at the editing restrictions page and remain in effect indefinitely, unless and until it is successfully appealed. I also note that this is in effect a two-way interaction ban as Edelseider agreed to this voluntarily. More information on the scope of interaction bans can be found by following the links in the above statement and the section header. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: First, I presume and trust that my reply to you, here on my talkpage, will not be construed as interacting with Edelseider.
Re the IBAN: No problem here; I never wanted to interact with him once I saw his reaction to my helpful suggestion that he use edit summaries and the "show preview" button. I remind you that he brought up the complaint on ANI, one that I found to be frivolous and exaggerated.
Re my failure to reply to you: A quick glance at my contribution history would show that I've been away from Wikipedia for several days. I'll leave it up to your imagination as to what real-world demands might tear a person away from such a delightful exchange. A more thorough look at it would give you an idea of what I do and don't do on WP;. I copyedit and provide other gnome-ish help. I don't seek drama, conflict, or affirmation.
Your rather categorical statement, "It is clear from your recent behavior that you are engaging in a vendetta against Edelseider", makes it clear to me that you and I take different approaches to deductive reasoning, and that we go by different definitions of the word vendetta.
The single action I took that ostensibly prompted the accusations in the ANI complaint was to simultaneously post the same comment below five instances of the same, seemingly self-promoting A-class nomination. The lamentation of a grumpy copyeditor, meant as a head-up to others, that's all. Mea culpa, not my finest moment. But it is a stretch to construe it as a personal attack, and it certainly does not even remotely approach any interpretation of the term vendetta that I have ever come across. Yes, I can see where my comment under the nominations, especially taken out of context, might be viewed in a poor light. But after a quick look at the edit history of the Palais Rohan article, the worst anyone should conclude from my comment is that I was annoyed at how the article has been edited, and that I am unfortunately capable of expressing that annoyance through sarcasm. A one-time, atypical venting from an exasperated copyeditor hoping to alert other editors to the irony of the self-promotion in the nominations. A comment on the editing, and not mentioning any one person, you might note. Why Edelseider might infer it as a personal insult is anyone's guess.
For me to engage in a vendetta against Edelseider, I would first have to have perceived some insult or injury from him, which is impossible. I do not grant him that power. I do not take him that seriously, because, regrettably, I am familiar with his history on Wikipedia. And "vendetta" implies that I have engaged in a tit-for-tat conflict with him, which I clearly have not done.
Dear Eric Just One Question to ask you How many species of Hibiscus have you seen in your life time ? I have seen over 300 and less than 100 I wanted to shared are there any problem if other want to see them ? or if there other way to contribution please do so but what you did also tear a person away as you have been experienced the same issue before. if I got it wrong please Kindly let me know About IBAN ? Trisorn Triboon (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who applies a bit of diligence to researching the histories of the accuser and the accused in this matter will see that one has a long history of engaging in contentious behavior, making personal attacks, and being blocked--across multiple user accounts and multiple wikis--while the other does not.
I think the net effect of this unfortunate ANI process will be to prompt the departure from Wikipedia of someone who provides a moderate amount of much-needed copyediting, anti-vandalism, and language help, and does not seek accolades or to bloat his edit count; while at the same time it will reward and encourage the continued adversarial behavior of editors with altogether different agendas here. Eric talk 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to go back over this point-by-point with you, but I would add the following:
  • I was not the only one who perceived a problem here, and you'll note that I asked for both of you to just agree to disengage
  • I did see that you were inactive in the middle of this for whatever reason. Unfortunately, ANI moves rather quickly and if something isn't resolved in about three or four days it tends to jst get archived and forgotten, leaving the underlying issue unresolved.
  • That being said, I'd be happy to retroactively change this from a final warning to a voluntary iban if you would just indicate your willingness to abide by it.
  • Nothing in this iban, voluntary or not, prevents you from doing your normal activities. All you need to do is avoid direct interaction with one specifc other user. Given the vastness of Wikipedia content and the large number of other users, this won't be difficult to do. If the other user is really as bad as you claim others will notice and deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Beeblebrox, and for the offer. I don't mind the iban wording remaining as it is, unless it keeps me way higher on the naughty list than I would otherwise be. The less of anyone's time this takes up, the better. It's highly likely that I would have abided by the terms of the iban for the rest of my WP career in any case, even if it had not been in effect. Eric talk 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome[edit]

For my edit on user talk:Starspotter. Being appreciated on Wikipedia has been a rarity, so thank you for doing so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversing edits[edit]

English may or may not be your first language, but please show some humility when reverting changes in any case. Far from an "unhelpful" change, making the sentence "nonsensical", it improved the accuracy of the sentence! Noldorin (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NoldorinElf: Thanks for the chuckle regarding my English fluency! Now for yours, which is no laughing matter, it seems... Please enlighten us who are less learned than you as to how the following sentence, as you have rendered it in the Noiret article, is grammatically functional: He was an indifferent student, and several prestigious Paris schools, including the Lycée Janson de Sailly.
Have you consulted the OED by chance? Mine gives this as the first definition of scholar: One who is taught in a school; now esp. a boy or girl attending an elementary school... The second definition in the AHD is quite similar: One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student. According to those two dictionaries, the definition you categorically assert in your edit summary--and thanks for providing one this time--is not the only meaning of the word scholar.
Normally I would move a discussion such as this to the article's talkpage, but I'm holding off on that to avoid embarrassing you further, as my talkpage is probably less visited. I'll give you some time to calm down and reflect on your edit and on your indignation, and to work on your "improvement" of the sentence in question. Eric talk 18:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Eric: You evidently have some basic problems with logic. Here's a link for you to the OED entry I'm referring to, which clearly reflects contemporary usage: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scholar. Note well, the definition as "a student or pupil" is labelled archaic! The primary definitions are precisely the ones I gave in the edit summary, and are the ones I had in mind when I made what should have been a very uncontentious minor edit, initially. You can tell me to calm down all you like, but I've clearly rankled you far more than the reverse. I doubt someone as pig-headed as you will show humility now, but I've clearly demonstrated your usage of the word is inappropriate insofar as it is archaic. Noldorin (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
NoldorinElf: The website you link, while belonging to the Oxford University Press, is not the OED site. And in any case, it does not demonstrate that the word scholar, as used in the Noiret article, is incorrect. You're straying further into both poor behavior and embarrassment here, as well as continuing not to examine your edit, it seems. I'll give you one more chance to both look at the sentence you created and to adopt a civil attitude. Eric talk 20:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Who the hell are you tell me to do such, you supercilious prick? You started this argument by being rude and personal; I'm doing nothing more than responding in kind. So yes, you rather brought this on yourself! The OED site is subscriber-only, so obviously I can't link there. But it's pretty clear that the definition of scholar generally as a student/pupil is archaic. The petty affront you took to my minor edit speaks only of your small-minded character, and nothing else. I shall report you now for your unacceptable behaviour, and let this be the end of the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoldorinElf (talkcontribs) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you should report this. It should prove interesting. Eric talk 01:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Noldorin (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, congratulations for completely failing to point out that the word "attended" was accidentally deleted! If this was what you referring to about "nonsensical", you should have bloody well said so! Noldorin (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't see much point in engaging you, NoldorinElf, especially as I suspect you will be given a time-out soon, but I will suggest that you re-read the beginning of my first reply to you (above), this time with the goal of comprehending it. Eric talk 15:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Gotta love it when people think other people are responsible for their own mistakes. He could quote from the OED, but he couldn't read the diff of his own edit. Lepricavark (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I know...I really tried to help the guy extricate himself from the initial outburst, but he was tenaciously determined to feel offended. Eric talk 18:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Contrary to the tantrum masquerading as an ANI report, you were actually far more gracious than many of us (myself especially) would have been in dealing with such an utterly unreasonable person. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to talk him off the ledge, but it seems he was determined to jump. Eric talk 11:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your circle jerk, you pathetic bunch of losers, haha. Noldorin (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit: w:Talk:Astronomy college course/Chasing Pluto[edit]

Your much appreciated contribution to .../Chasing Pluto won't be visible for at least six months. I don't teach Astronomy until next Spring, and have too much on my plate to fix the problem now. Each quiz resides in two places: On Wikiversity where students can study it, and on my laptop, where exams are generated. Wikiversity:User:Stambaugh tom just wrote a beautiful Python test generating program that will make it much easier for us to ensure that each database contains identical quizzes. The code is open source so user friendly we can start giving out this stuff for zero $ in the near future.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding French Dioceses and Church Articles[edit]

Hi Eric

Many of my edits are with regards to grammar (e.g. over-usage of commas, adding periods where they are accidentally left out, etc.) or rephrasing poorly stated sentences or linking words to articles (national monument [in French articles] to the wiki article "Monument historique" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_historique) or giving a more accurate name to cathedrals that fulfill the French translation than the current English name as per the original French wikipages for these cathedrals (without this addition the French translation is left ambiguously translating nothing from the English because the English translation is not on the page). Regarding changes made to language options (e.g. "(Latin: ; [native language]: )"), many wiki articles already have these options, specifically in this layout.

Regarding my past usage of flags, I am still waiting any type of explanatory response on the human geography talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_geography, "Question regarding human geography"), posted all the way back in March, or the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_15), posted again in early March, in order to build a consensus as to how flag usage would be inappropriate, considering the fact that church buildings and church dioceses are of human construct in/on a geographical location (be it in an area, as is the case with dioceses, or on a specific geographical point, as is the case with cathedrals), and that:

"[h]uman geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes.

The specific question in my post in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_15, just like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_geography, invites anyone to help build a consensus on the current facts by explaining how human geography does not include religious construction [either dioceses or churches]:

"Wouldn't religious buildings (mosques, churches, synagogues, temples, etc.) be considered part of human geography since they aren't naturally occurring formation? Wikipedia's articles on "Human geography" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_geography, "Building" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building, and "Cultural geography" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_geography seem to not touch the topic, though these links regarding AP Human Geography (https://quizlet.com/2120072/ap-human-geography-cultural-geography-flash-cards/ [which specifically mentions religious buildings (see "Christian religious buildings", "Hindu religious buildings", "Buddhist", "Islamic religious buildings", and "Judaic")] and https://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/geography-and-environment/spotlight-on-geography/human-geography-and-physical-geography certainly [which touches on religion in general (see "Cultural Geography")]) seem to concur that religion/religious buildings are part of human geography." "Flag icons for religious dioceses and religious buildings", but sadly I have got no explanatory responses.

Numerous other language versions of Wikipedia (e.g. French, Spanish) allow the usage of flags in infoboxes in nearly all religious Wikipedia articles.

Perhaps the best example of legitimate edits being labelled "disruptive" comes from adding an American flag under "National Team" to the infobox of the wiki article for Abby Wambach. Despite "the guidelines set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes, which clearly state: "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes", which would make my edit productive, not disruptive, User:Mattythewhite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattythewhite) insisted that this edit was "disruptive". When asked:

"How can an edit/editor can't be declared disruptive ... if he/she and his/her edit is in line with Wiki guidelines that are specifically set out in black and white?." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_35

no response was given, which continues to the present day.

I can't see how legitimate edits like this, whether done for just this wiki page or an infinite amount more, need a consensus, as per your and others' advice, simply because there seems to be some type of disagreement, which, in fact, is completely due to a lack of knowledge of the explicit Manual of Style guidelines, which could not be clearer. I am concerned that the Manual of Style/Icons might be deliberately not followed by these users.

Despite all of these minor edits (objective grammar changes, addition of flags in infoboxes where appropriate) perhaps seeming like a lot, they amount to a minor amount of change of the article as a whole. I am not making major changes like changing or adding whole paragraphs, creating infoboxes, templates, or new subsections, etc.. How is it really necessary to consult editors regarding minor grammar or small rephrases, even if done to numerous articles? Are there any Wikipedia project pages showing why such incremental [and, in the case of grammar, objective] constructive changes done to many articles would need consultation when these edits are in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons, or, in the case of French cathedrals, the spirit of the law (i.e. that the French translation to the title of a cathedral that does not have the English words from which to translate on the page would show a lack of information provided and, if left alone, would make no sense)? I understand the necessity to reach a consensus on major constructive changes to an article, but I am perplexed as to why such a consensus is needed for such minor constructive changes.

Numerous editors have tried to slow down a simple uniformization of poorly presented info [e.g. French translations to no English words; no clear presentation of translations (e.g. (Lat.Dioecesis), with no link to the wiki article for the language of "Latin"), etc.] without any reference to their claims, only to have me to continuously explain the evidence for the edit and ask with what they specifically disagree/their point of view, only for them to never respond in any substantive factual manner, if at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors.

Why is that when I am trying to seek a consensus, as per your and others' advice, with those who disagree with the edits, I ask specific, constructive questions both to the person(s) who disagree (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_35) and the community at large (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_geography and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons), citing that the edits are in line with the Manual of Style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons), only to have them not answer in any substantive, factual manner, if at all, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors, but yet I am still told that these edits are disruptive somehow, one now must assume?

Such "failure to cooperat[e]" seems to be the epitome of "a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors.

--Ka24872482Akeakamai (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. This is way beyond the necessary response. And not the place to post this essay. Don't even know what you're talking about with "flags". I'm moving your response to your page, where you should have placed your answer to my post. Eric talk 19:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just curious about you opinion, removed image[edit]

there was an IP, you undid some of its edits, but in one page where we both work you did not undo this one. I know a little about Switzerland but not too much so what do you think? Was it really a bad image? --Alexmar983 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex- I was on the fence about that edit, and wanted to give others a chance to consider it. That IP editor has been regularly disruptive on several articles regarding bilingual Swiss places, but I wasn't sure the sign defacing warranted mention in the article. Eric talk 12:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I trust your decision. Just curious.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex, if you think it is pertinent to the article, by all means restore it. But I think it would help to make some mention of it in the body. I'm not aware how much conflict there is regarding language in the canton, and the article does not discuss the issue, so the picture seemed a bit random. It would be nice to have some local input, but it seems not many editors are watching that article. Eric talk 16:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem... I was taking care of the commons monthly photo competition... I insert category, add description and sometimes if they are original I insert some of the pictures here and there, it is just a feedback for me when/if I do something similar in the future, really.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks re: Ernio48[edit]

Unfortunately Ernio48 seems determined not to use edit summaries. Their response to a polite followup inquiry about it was "Leave me alone." Not sure anything else can be done because apparently it is only a "best practice" to leave edit summaries and not a requirement. It should be required. Any ideas? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

DIYeditor: I don't know. It's a pet peeve of mine for sure, but I get the impression we have a certain percentage of users--including some good contributors--who simply don't care. Their mommies told them they are special, and so they don't feel the need to do the rest of us any courtesy. By the way, I saw a good post on this topic the other day that I think could be a candidate for a template: User_talk:WhatsUpWorld#Edit_summaries_redux. Eric talk 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Eric. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Commas[edit]

Hi, Eric. "Valspeak"? How does that relate to punctuation?

My reading of both our comma article and the instructions at MOS:COMMA indicate that those commas are necessary:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation.
Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.
Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.

The comma article has the nice example

"The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening."

which is referenced to the Chicago Manual of Style. I'll be the first to admit those closing commas are frequently omitted, but I've never yet seen a reliable source suggest they're optional.

Best, Moscow Mule (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's bad style nevertheless. The "Valspeak" comment refers to awkward pauses in mid-sentence (Valley Girl talk). As for the Chicago Manual of Style, it will tell you to hyphenate non-adjectival use of fractions, so don't go looking there for guidance. Eric talk 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Once again? I do not recall interacting with you on any topic in the past. For this reason I have some trouble with this remark. Virion123 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved comment to User_talk:Virion123#edit_summaries,_multiple_consecutive_edits and replied there. Eric talk 13:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Access Code (film)[edit]

Hello, Eric. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Access Code".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying in my wake, Legacypac. I can't even remember why I started that draft... Eric talk 21:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Southern Europe categories[edit]

Where is consensus for changes name of Southern Europe categories to incorrect "southern Europe"? Please give a link. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

replied at Category_talk:Archaeology_of_Southern_Europe#Move_/_name_change. Eric talk 20:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sought(-after) Matsutake[edit]

Hi,

I do a lot of minor copy editing to improve the delivery of words on Wikipedia pages, and noticed your reversion of my minor edit of 'sought-after' to 'sought' on the Matsutake page, in other words deleting the 'after'. I love to eat mushrooms, although I don't pretend to know much about them other than rare infections that they cause. However, 'sought-after' is an incorrect usage of the word sought that has crept into the English language, and has even appeared in dictionaries and newspapers. There is nothing that is 'sought-after' that can't simply be sought. The error may be more apparent when using the verb from which sought is derived - proper usage is to 'seek' an object, not 'seek after' something. Although the 'sought after' construction gets used, to language purists, it's a glaring misuse. Addition of the hyphen makes the misuse even more of a problem - there is no reason to be using one in this situation.

I notice from your user page that you have some facility in other languages. If you translate the sentence into one of those languages, it may help - I don't believe there's ever a modifier for seek or sought in those languages. Please reconsider and delete both the hyphen and after.

I do my copy editing because I believe the delivery of information is nearly as important as the content of Wikipedia pages, but it gets much less attention. Thanks for reading.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ira- Incorrigible copyeditor that I am as well, I was sure that your correction was incorrect. Nevertheless I checked the AHD*, which agreed with me. So, doubly sure of myself, I reverted your change. But now you have provoked horrible self-doubt in me! Of course, I says to myself upon reading your post, I would never write seek after. Then why did sought-after seem so obviously correct to me? I want to research why, because this belies my notion that I'm always paying attention to language. Now, that usage seems more old-fashioned or poetic to me than downright wrong, but, dang it, you've made me think that a simple sought is more correct. Still, I will say that the hyphen is properly employed even if the overall expression ain't: In a world where seek after is correct, the use of the past participle sought in a compound adjective calls for the hyphen: He wished for a world without usage errors, but, alas, the wished-for world was not to be found. All that to say I'm reverting my revert. Thanks for checking in. *Note: The AHD usually has a usage note after the definition of a problematic term, but they've dropped their standards in these latter days, granting horrors like "incentivize" entry status where previous editions rightly (and methinks generously) called it a "usage problem". So I wonder if it's the same with the adjectival sought-after. Eric talk 13:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your comments. I have two theories about the modification of 'sought'. The first is that it has been done for decades, so that even though it's incorrect, by now it's accepted. (I suppose that's how many new usages start, but at my age I'll probably never consider it correct.) I could probably prove that if I researched when and how often it first started appearing, but I think I'm too lazy. The second theory, which I can't prove, is that the opening lines of Star Trek made modifying 'seek' seem OK to a huge audience, for two generations and going strong. ("Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.") What is 'out' doing there? It's unnecessary and wrong - or at least it was unnecessary and wrong before 1966. But it makes modification of seek and sought more easy in other contexts. Just my opinion.
And I think you're right about the hyphen.
Thanks again for your answer, and for reading.
Ira
Ira Leviton (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ira: Well, as a longtime fan of Star Trek, I can't be objective on that use of seek out, as it's part of the Holy Canon, but I think four out of five dentists would okay it as an enhancement that emphasizes the questing aspect of the search. Do you have access to the OED? Looking now... -after and -for are part of the second entry for sought, but the only etymological example they give for is from 1881: He was the fashionable and most sought-after accoucheur (which I now learn is the French for obstetrician). ...And then I looked up seek; recommend you do as well. If you do so in the actual book form, get out the magnifying glass! A long entry, with many mentions of seek out (Roddenbury and Shatner breathing easier now), and a full sub-entry for seek after, with the earliest mention being from 1200: Sech after þing þe ðe beð biheue (seek after [thing] [the] ? ? ?). Very interesting to see the evolution of the spelling over the centuries -- many of the old citations use inflections on an infinitive form sechen. So it all looks like a question of usage style rather than hard-and-fast rules, at least seen from the eight-hundred-year perspective. Aside: Have you read The Professor and the Madman? Great book relating to the creation of the OED. Thanks for the barnstar! Think it's my first! Cheers. Eric talk 17:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I enjoyed reading your message – this is for all the copy editing behind the scenes. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On Lamorak[edit]

Hey, for the first source you cited about the alternate name, i cant find anywhere in it that says 'lamorat', it only says Lamorak. The 2nd source checks out though. 208.102.180.134 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That source was for Lamorak. I restored it. Before reverting the edits of an experienced editor, it's best to consult with him or her regarding concerns you have about the edits. Eric talk 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Good job keeping a cool head when dealing with this IP Eric. I've dealt with it before and it was quite a headache! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrzejbanas. I wonder what percentage of wp edits stem from dealing with problematic IP editors. It might have been a nice idea from an experimental aspect to allow unregistered users, but it seems well past time to conclude that chapter of the experiment. Eric talk 13:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I'm not sure what would be the best way to handle it as I don't have all the facts on how much vandalism is caused by random IPs, but accounts would seem like the most simple way of dealing with it. I guess as wikipedia has less editors than before, they do not want to do too much to discourage editing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000's river renaming[edit]

Hi Eric, see my latest at User talk:ZH8000#Rivers. Bermicourt (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt- I commented there. I also tweaked a couple of those river articles, but they want more English help. Don't have time right now to do more. ZH's obstinance is tedious; I see a lot of that on en.wp from non-native speakers -- an unfortunate phenomenon. See what you think of my solution at Melach. That could be done to some or all of the others. I think if the beginning of the first sentence introduces the fact that the topic is a river, then continues by saying it's a tributary of Foo, we can dispense with a second use of "River" in that sentence. Eric talk 12:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Unless it's a US or British river where "River" is part of the official name, I think it's less critical in the opening sentence of a river article provided it says something like "The Foo is a tributary of..." or "The Foo is a river, 122 km long, in..." And it fits in with the article naming convention, certainly for European rivers. Where it's more important to use "River Foo", "Foo River" or "Foo river" is in non-river articles e.g. "The Foo runs through the town centre" is ambiguous whereas "The Foo river runs through the town centre" is clear. My personal preference for European rivers is either "River Foo" or "Foo river" in those articles, but that's because a) I'm a Brit and b) believe European articles should generally use British English (because it's an official EU language etc.), lol. Bermicourt (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
But wait, you guys quit the club, no? An island nation once again? ;) I like "River Foo" better -- the lowercase "r" makes my eye twitch a bit. Cheers, Eric talk 11:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Vignette stuff[edit]

Robert McClenon closed off the discussion on the dispute noticeboard as ZH800 doesn't wanna join, and he probably didn't like me posting about how ZH8000 tried to get the talk page protected too behind our backs. I've added a clear proposal of what to put in the article on the article's talk page here.

Please comment if you still care to get dragged into this mess :) 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance[edit]

Why did you revert my posting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizymon (talkcontribs) 20:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

See the talkpage Talk:Argument_from_ignorance. Try to improve your communication and editing habits. Eric talk 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes He trying to revert my post as well just wondering why ? Trisorn Triboon (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue about explanation of Personal Gallery Definition ?[edit]

Please kindly explain me about definition of Personal gallery in wikipedia ? and The reason of conclusion about what did would concluded as personal gallery ? --Trisorn Triboon (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. Please don't post the same question to the same person in multiple places. One thing you want to avoid here is making a lot of work for others. Eric talk 11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Dolomite Problem"[edit]

(Moved from Eric's user page to here):

Dear Eric, The Dolomite Problem is still a recognised problem in science. How should we include this in the article? (posted by Kelly222)

Hello Kelly- Please see your talkpage: User_talk:Kelly222#"Dolomite_Problem" Eric talk 04:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Eric I don't know how to put this on the right place. Can you put it there and tell me your answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Kelly222, I answered you on your talkpage, which is linked above. I suggest you follow the links in the welcome messages there and learn some basics of editing on Wikipedia before you do much more editing here. Eric talk 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Eric, I am sorry you are taking this attitude that process and editing expertise is more important than content. Will you please answer my question: does science recognise that there is a Dolomite Problem? If so, then your removal of the edit was unhelpful for the encyclopedia. Some people don't have time to learn all the ins and outs of editing, they just want to make a small but useful contribution and they find that people wipe out their efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talkcontribs) 01:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)