User talk:JackLumber/Archive2

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

Jack is fixin' to hit the road and he likely won't come back no more. JackLumber. 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that's not true. Nil illegitimi carborundum. I thought you may wish to comment on on the "List of Trinidadian English terms" debate. It's beginning to look like some editor/admins are deciding that the WP:NOT policy excludes lists of words simiilar to the ones we have been working on, wanting them transwikied to individual entries per word in Wiktionary (which I think would be wrong). Anyway, if you do go, "May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, and may the sun shine warm upon your face" Best. WLD 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


It is inappropriate to redirect your talk elsewhere, so I have removed it. Blank this page if you will, but please don't redirect it. violet/riga (t) 07:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter to him if he's gone? -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 12:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC).
Exactly, so why would it matter that it's not a redirect? And when I did this he hadn't given notice of leaving. Indeed, he still made a couple of edits after saying he was leaving. violet/riga (t) 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good morning, everybody. I just said I was fixing to leave. JackLumber. 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So you won't be? Good. violet/riga (t) 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card![edit]


Regarding your reversions in the Power Station article[edit]

JackLumber: I really don't care whether the article uses "British Isles" or "United Kingdom" ... it is a trivial point. But what I do care about is that differences of opinion should be aired on the article's Discussion page which is there for just that purpose. Continually reverting and debating via the edit "Summary" is the wrong thing to do. I am particulary offended by your edit "Summary" on August 15th that read "f**k" it". Please stop using the edit "Summary" as your soapbox and for profanity. - mbeychok 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


OK - I have been attempting to edit the article on American English. Essentially the article argues that the greater range of accents in the eastern US vis-a-vis the western US is due to imitation of prestidgous forms of British English. While I acknowledge that there are MANY facotrs influencing the development of regional accents, the single greatest cause of language divergence is isolation. I specifically discount the imitation of British prestidgous British pronounciation because as little as 50 years after Jamestown, people begin to remark about colonial accents and the like and by 1776 there is clearly an 'American' accent.

If you take 20 people who speak English, split them into two groups and continue to isolate those two groups for 1000 years, odds are their progeny will speak two different languages. Essentially only two developments and the general increase in literacy have changed the pace of language divergence. The first was the printing press which standardized lexicon and syntax. The second was modern media, which was essentially the radio but of course the television cannot be ignored. This invention permits people to actually listen to a 'standard' form of the language over distances that in pre-industrial eras used to be isolated from each other. The longer any given area is in isolation the more language divergence you will see. In medieval times, isolation was much more common and we see this effect in the modern forms of English as spoken on the British isles. Considering the size of the UK its difficult to imagine how such language divergence could occur until you consider the length of time these areas were isolated from each other (really, people didn't travel like they do today, there is no interstate!) before the advent of the printing press and before the advent of modern media. In the case of Germany, the issue becomes even clearer: cross the Alps from Baden Wurtemburg into Switzerland and you travel from one German dialect to another that can't understand the others dialect.

Furthermore, while the word dialect is technically correct, the term accent is more descriptive in this case. The distinction between British English and American English and the various varieties really don't rise to the level of a different dialect in my view because the various forms are mutually intelligible, the spelling, syntax and grammar differences are relatively insignificant.

Nevertheless I have attempted to edit this article on several occasions and it continues to be edited back. I finally logged on and created a username. I went to the edit page and it acknowledges my theory but says that it should go up for discussion first. I am not particularly familiar with this system. But really this change should be made.

Thanks Jack[edit]

Hi Jack.

Just a quick thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've just been dipping my toe in the water so far, but I'm keen to contribute more when I get the chance. Will be sure to contact you if I have any problems. Cheers! Parkingtigers 17:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Help disambiguating[edit]

Hello, you commented on Talk:Athletics regarding the movement of that page, and so I was hoping you could help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move. All the wikilinks to Athletics must now be disambiguating to one of the more specific links. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The list of articles linking to Athletics can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Athletics. Regards. -- Jeff3000 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Thanks for ending the nightmare on Talk:Backing vocalist with the voice of reason and science! Did you ever see my comments and questions addressed to you there? Could you please help prevent someone who's either a hyphen fetishist or perhaps just loves debating from making WP disregard established usage among English-speaking linguists as shown on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Finland-Swedish. Thanks! --Espoo 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. What new points do you have for me? I just renominated the category rename Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Finland-Swedish --Espoo 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

copyedit portal[edit]


I find it very disturbing and depressing that huge amounts of WP editing time are wasted on unnecessary and clearly amateur discussions of naming and spelling issues. Being a linguist, you of course realise that almost all discussions on language use by normal people make fools of almost all participants, and they waste a very large part of editing efforts on WP. I'm getting so fed up with this nonsense that i'd like to ask you what you think about the idea of setting up a copyedit portal or copyedit emergency squad to get some sanity and professionalism into this completely amateur aspect of WP. See Talk:Académie française and Talk:Genealogy#reverts_of_WP:OR.2C_private_.28conspiracy.29_theories.2C_and_other_nonsense for more details... --Espoo 09:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Espoo, that's a damn good idea. I wish I had some more time---I'd join your project stat. Just to help throw some anarchy out the window. I hope to be back soon. UNT, JackLumber. 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the moral support. If you have a few minutes, please add a quick comment at the urgent case on Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move, which will shut down soon and where fears of upsetting a prominent sacred cow's unscientific attitude towards language are being used to set a precedent for not using well-known and widely used English versions of foreign names in article titles. I hope a linguist's comment will help an admin think twice about counting votes without weighting them. So if you decide to vote, please mention you're a linguist. Here we have a case of chaos being produced by pseudo-intellectuals including some university publishers... --Espoo 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WT: chill[edit]

You and Connel are arguing at cross-purposes. He was wrong to have reverted your edits to résumé, but edit warring and arguing with him isn't going to accomplish anything. If you back off, he'll probably calm down, and we can all get back to the business of improving the dictionary. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Improperly transwikified[edit]

The summary of your 21:54, 28 November 2006 edit of Glossary of Canadian English words reads "rv/illegal 3-day poll, no real consensus, improperly transwikified, cf. Australian English vocabulary". Are you pointing to Australian English vocabulary as an example of how this should be done or as another example of how not to do it? If it is the latter and you don't mind my asking, what, in your view, was done improperly? Jimp 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ... P.S. Did some digging around & this is what I found. I s'pose that this is what you mean by "improperly transwikied". Jimp 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. I thought the page should stay put pending a proper, convenient "wiktionarization." And I was under the impression that this article was kinda railroaded in that which seems to be a WP:WINAD/WP:AfD spree going on right now. It is reasonable that the Canadian page and the Australian page receive the same treatment. JackLumber. 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is reasonable, yes, and had it receive the same maybe it'd happily be in the Wiktionary appendices with its good Aussie friend instead of being up for deletion from the main namespace over there. It probably will be deleted from Wiktionary and this being the case I think you're right that the page should stay put until it can be transwikied properly. Jimp 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Labor" in Australian English[edit]

Just saw a discussion way back in May with Myrtone. As an Australian with university education I'm not sure I agree with many of his points, but one of interest was your reference to the "Australian Labor Party". Re that one the article King O'Malley is interesting:

O'Malley's other legacy was the spelling of "Labor" in the Australian Labor Party's title in the American style. He was a spelling reform enthusiast and persuaded the party that "Labor" was a more "modern" spelling than "Labour." Although the American spelling has not become established in Australia, Labor has preserved the spelling.

I do agree with you that Australian and British English are distinct - although broadly speaking one follows the other's conventions, there are many cases (eg "ae", "oe") where both are acceptable. It's very inconsistent indeed - eg an average Australian would use the words encyclopedia, foetus and paedophile with those spellings. -ise and -ize are used probably 50/50 but official Australian English uses -ise (although the Macquarie gives -ize as a second correct spelling in every instance in its listings), and -or is *never* used in Australia except for the spelling of the ALP as above. Australia also follows the British date format although I've seen many people write the month first. And with word usage - we follow US in some and UK in others. Amusingly, New Zealand often reverses our choice - eg we use "freeway" and they use "motorway", but then we use "mobile phones" and they use "cell phones"!! All very interesting.

And the word "programme" - Australians have settled for utter inconsistency. There's actually a distinction in meaning these days, present in many style guides (I used to write closed captions for Australian TV) between "programme", more like an agenda or set list of events at a function, and "program" referring to computer software or a unit of production in TV or radio. Orderinchaos78 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

British spelling and Australian spelling look pretty much the same—differences are chiefly a matter of relative frequencies (e.g. in the Australian Corpus of English, Macquarie University, -ise outnumbers -ize by a ratio of 3:1; in the British National Corpus, the ratio is 3:2) and the same holds true for grammar. But don't forget that the Australian lexicon features *a lot* of distinctive words and usages that set it apart from both British and American English! Example: David Williamson's The Removalists was retitled "The Moving Men" in New York and "The Removal Men" in London. (Not to mention the famous -o and -ie words: compo, servo, barbie, bikkie...) While many of these words are also used across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand English has actually remained more similar to British English, and this is generally attributed to 1) New Zealand community being smaller and more homogeneous and 2) New Zealand language references being relatively recent. JackLumber. 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]


Thanks for the explanation in your edit summary. Is the OED quote a copyright violation? If so, how much can one quote? Not even a sentence or two? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess a footnote featuring the OED definition is a little out of place, but something like "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, [quote relevant information]" is fine. JackLumber. 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed your recent edits to guitar related articles...and that you have identified yourself as a guitarist. Just wondering if you would be interested in joining the WikiProject Guitarists?. We could always use a few more members to help out in "the cause" :) . Feel free to drop by the project page and see what we're all about. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I'll see if I can find some time, I'm always so busy. Sigh. I am particularly fond of semiacoustic guitars, as you probably noticed... JackLumber. 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you can contribute full time...all your edits are appreciated. The project really needs "niche" editors who like to focus on one particular element. I got my first guitar when I was only 9 years old...a 1962 Strat. Not wanting to date myself but that guitar was brand new when I got it. I started playing professionally when I was only 13 years old and continued to do so until I switched into my Engineering career in the mid-1980s. Through both careers I have been a guitar addict and have kept every single guitar I've ever owned.(which I will do as long as my wife allows :) ). My 'addiction' collection totals 27 now including a few semi's that I cherish. I've had a Cherry ES-335 and a burst ES-175 for many years. I also have a Framus Akkerman model which is a beautiful guitar. I also "claim" to own a White Gretsch Falcon...I say claim because my oldest son declared himself as owner back when he was in University and I don't see it very often. My Christmas present to myself this year was a Ric 360-12. I would love to see a regular editor step in to care for the "semi"'s all about 'time'. Again, thanks for your contributions and hopefully we'll see you around more often. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, a couple of your paragraphs hold true for yours truly too! Just substitute "sunburst ES-335" for "Cherry ES-335" and "Linguistics" for "Engineering." JackLumber. 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


You beat me to my edit... oh well...that's what I get for using a <100mb/s datacard with Sprint for my connection...Thanks for changing retort on Wiktionary Radiooperator 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome and dang it all, you beat me to editing the Wiktionary page for retort...oh well at least it got done. Thanks for doing that.Radiooperator 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome (as in "Thanks, you're welcome," not "Welcome to Wikipedia" once more). JackLumber. 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Table (verb)" and similar entries in Canadian English words[edit]

JackLumber, you need to please go read WP:OWN right away. Your having created this article does not bestow special authority or weight upon your opinion regarding what does and doesn't belong here. "Table" is given its British Commonwealth meaning in Canada, which in the worldwide sense makes it not exclusively a Canadian usage, but in the context of proximity to the US, in which the term has a near-opposite meaning, the Canadian usage is noteworthy. This is not the only entry that would fit into such a category; entries abound in this list that are used in parts of the US, or are used differently in the US, or are used in the U.K. as well as parts of Canada. See for example "goof" and "flat", amongst others. --Scheinwerfermann 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about WP:OWN. That usage of table is duly noted in the main article, Canadian English, of which Canadian English words is but a spinoff. The North American context per se is irrelevant for the purpose of Canadian English words. JackLumber. 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed about WP:OWN; your statement was "I created this article, I know what belongs here and what doesn't". That is a direct violation of WP:OWN. Your subsequent comment ("Listen up!") reinforces the evidence that you are having trouble understanding that WP:OWN applies to you. Furthermore, edit wars are not permitted. Please refrain from reverting again before consensus is reached, one way or the other, on the article's talk page. Thanks.--Scheinwerfermann
The entries for goof and flat are fine, since they refer to uniquely Canadian meanings. You don't seem to understand the purpose of that article. JackLumber. 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

OK, fair enough. JackLumber. 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on February 13 2007 to Canadian English words[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian English words, continued[edit]


I don't claim to be the owner of that article. Sorry if I pissed you off. I only wanted to say, "Since I created this page as an article about apples, you are wrong in assuming it's an article about apples and oranges." Of course, we *can* remodel the whole thing and convert it into an article on "apples and oranges." For example, we can merge the Vocabulary section of Canadian English and Canadian English words into, say, Canadian English vocabulary, drop the alphabetical layout, and recategorize the words (Law, Politics (table, etc.), Household items, ..., Colloquialisms, Slang.) But table meaning "place on the agenda" is as Canadian as gasoline. The article Canadian English words currently is supposed to list "...words or expressions not found, or not widely used, in other variants of English." (Emphasis added). Other variants of English, not just American English. Or just British English, for that matter. JackLumber. 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. It does sound like I didn't understand your "I created the article" comment the way you intended it. In any event, it sounds like a more extensive rectification has come out of the debate, with table (verb) and other not-really-Canadianisms being culled, and that works for me. --Scheinwerfermann 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


JackLumber, thanks for reverting the unwarranted deletions PJBFlynn perpetrated in Headlamp as a part of his improper attempt to move the article. Duk and I and others worked this morning to undo improper link changes he'd made to articles linking to headlamp, but overlooked the deletions in the article itself. --Scheinwerfermann 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was purposely trying to make up for my discourtesy... JackLumber. 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

British English[edit]

Thanks for your edits, Jack. It looks a bit neater and sharper now. I need a good cold hard edit sometimes!ChrisRed 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Jack, I can't understand why you have labelled this... "Although the language as spoken in Britain has also gradually changed over the centuries, British English still remains closest to the 'original' dialect that the emigrees themselves spoke before they left Britain. a false claim. I am a Brit, and I speak fairly standard working-class 'British English' - not the sanitised 'BBC' version that you are used to hearing in our exported media. If you could hear me, your 'American ear' would think that I sounded like something that had just stepped-off the ship from Bristol in the 1700s :-) I'll leave it up to you... ChrisRed 08:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just it---some British dialects are remarkably conservative; many Northern dialects don't even distinguish between put and putt. But "British English" often refers to the Received Standard, Oxbridge, BBC, etc., which is not that close to the original dialect (which dialect, btw? East Anglia, West Country, Scots-Irish...) In some respects, American English is more conservative than the Received Standard; for U.S. speakers, parse-pass, sure-shore, and paw-poor are very different; and I pronounce extraordinary "ex-tra-or-duh-nar-ee," not 'strawd'nry :-) Of course, British English has retained a lot of phonological and lexical features that we lost a long time ago (in the U.S., a creek is a stream and not an inlet; lumber is processed timber and not disused furniture; and been is pronounced "bin," sometimes "ben," hardly ever "bean"). Both "standard" British and American have evolved, although certain Northern or Scottish dialects haven't evolved that much. Not so sure about Bristol, though. IMO, the remark should be rephrased and moved to the "Dialects" section of the article. JackLumber. 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jack. I think that the article is looking quite reasonable now. As for Mr Treherne, (hello sir), I can maybe understand his viewpoint to some extent. 'British English' is a strange sort of term, a bit like 'French French', or even in the future 'American American' god forbid, but I can't really think of another way to describe it. It is English as spoken in Britain. We can't call it 'original' English, or 'real' English, because the original accent is long lost, and there never was just one dominant accent anyway. I think that 'British English' is a term for a language that is still 'under construction'; a universal Lingua Franca of the British Isles for the mass-communication age. So perhaps at the moment it may actually be (IMHO)a slight 'tolerable misnomer' (as it should be called 'British Englishes' in the plural...yuck!) but I think that soon there will actually be a time where British accents converge into a fairly standard language that will be known to the rest of the world as 'British English'. I wonder if people in France feel the hairs on the back of their necks rise when when people from, say, Quebec say 'French French'?. 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ChrisRed @home, who forgot to log in :-)
"There was a time long ago when the language was only called English, and a relatively short period after that when it seemed reasonable to add a qualifying adjective—such as American—to a variety that deviated from the source. But the source from which all of today's major dialects sprang is now itself a historical dialect ... While it is still possible, and in fact it is usual, to speak of English as a single and unified language, the differences among the dialects are a required object of study" (Orin Hargraves, Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions, p. 12). Perhaps, "French French" is still regarded as the standard. To put it another way, "British English" is that which glues the dialects of the UK (or the British Isles) together. If you park your estate car, which runs on petrol, at the kerb, which separates the pavement from the carriageway, that's British English. If your estate agent suggests you should buy a terraced house in High Street, that's British English. And I won't take no stock in it! (Not shares!) JackLumber. 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of British English... what's a pillock? I guess it's not a complimentary term... JackLumber.
(BrE, slang) a stupid person. (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) JackLumber.
All agreed, Jack. I have (with good cause) apologised to Mr Treherne for calling him a Pillock, which would translate more accurately as a "socially inept anal nerd". It's one of those words (like 'eejit') that I want to subvert into American a virus :-) (ChrisRed) 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I emended a Wikipedia entry in order to clarify the content. Having had the text reverted once I amended my editions as I had realised it contained an opinion. The editions I have made since are perfectly valid and do not contravene the site rules as far as I can tell. The phrase 'British English' is in fact a misnomer not a 'broad term'. Therefore my changes do not constitute site "vandalism"

Are you a site administrator? If so then I shall apologise and leave your site to disseminate incorrect information as you wish. If not then please stop reverting the entry to the incorrect previous form.

Thank you

Mr A Treherne

Help with American English needed![edit]

Jack - I hope you don't mind answering a simple (?) question about American English which has nothing directly to do with Wikipedia - though it's an issue that's discussed in American and British English differences. I am presented with a sentence (by an American writer) which reads "One-third of people aged 85 years or older needs assistance...". That needs sounds wrong to my BrE ears and sensibilities, so I am inclined to change it to need. In BrE it's a no-brainer [now, there's an American expression!]: in this sentence, needs is wrong, need is right. But I am aware that the American tendency is for verbs to agree formally rather than notionally with the subject, so I wonder if it's in fact correct AmE usage. Can you enlighten me? Thanks! Snalwibma 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Collective nouns aside, I don't think that BrE and AmE disagree that much on agreement issues. The facts: plural (count) noun->plural verb; mass noun->singular verb; collective noun->both technically acceptable, although the singular sounds better to me. People is usu. a plural noun, not a mass noun or a collective noun, so the sentence in question calls for need. If it were one-third of the population, then needs would be correct. HTH, JackLumber. 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds just like BrE. Snalwibma 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I merged "Interlocking tower" into "Signal box"[edit]

Hello. I merged "Interlocking tower" into "Signal box" . Please visit Signal box, and, if you find something bad, please edit that. Thank you.Penpen0216 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pencil crayon[edit]

I have edited the reference to pencil crayon in the Canadian English article. Although, I have never used the term coloured pencil, it was used in The Globe and Mail this weekend. — Grstain | Talk 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! When it comes to everyday vocabulary, there's nothing more variable than Canadian usage... JackLumber. 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maize dablink[edit]

You were very quick to remove my dablink for Maize -- I'm not in a position to challenge that, but perhaps you could recommend some other mechanism which (a) sits nicely at the top of the page and (b) explains to the baffled newcomers how come they got redirected from "Corn" to a word they have rarely heard and would never know how to spell. era 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! That's an overstatement. I guess the article is fine, the lead is clear enough. JackLumber. 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Overstatement is my middle name. But seriously, I think anything which can exacerbate the never-ending discussion and rogue moves back to "corn" is a move in the right direction.
Tangentially, your comment says "ain't a dablink anyways" so I'm wondering what the (your? >:^) definition of "dablink" really is. The template itself doesn't offer any insight. -- era (Talk | History) 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Something like
For <yada yada>, see Ex.
and possibly
see also Wye and Zee.
Encyclopedic information should be confined to the article text. JackLumber. 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That much I gathered. Maybe I just need to monitor the situation wrt the Maize page some more before I make my mind up on this one. -- era (Talk | History) 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Irrelevant? How so?

The text reads as follows: Canadian English generally follows British usage for defence, offence and practice[citation needed], and mostly for licence/license as well ...

N.B. the prevaricating terms "generally" and "mostly".

I simply provided a readily accessible real world example, namely a driver's licence.

And if a driver's licence is called a "driving" licence in the UK, then that really is IRRELEVANT.

My footnote was nothing of the sort.

Varlaam 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Your example indeed suggests that licence is the preferred "official" spelling for the noun (no doubt about it), but (1) it doesn't say anything about the currency of license as a noun (actually more than I expected [2] [3] [4]) and (2) it doesn't say anything at all about the verb. Plus, I wanted to prevent someone else from opening the driver's-vs.-driving can of worms. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiberno English[edit]

I know the WP requires references etc, but is there another problem with the above mentioned page that you haven't alluded to. I have have some references, but there may be better ones available. Gold♣heart 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Tom McArthur, The Oxford Companion to the English Language, the regional dialects are (I) Anglo-Irish, a middle- and working-class dialect used by the descendants of English settlers and found throughout Ireland except the most northerly counties; (II) Ulster Scots in the northernmost counties, particularly associated with Protestants in Northern Ireland; (III) Hiberno-English, a chiefly working-class variety spoken by usually Catholic people whose ancestral tongue was Gaelic. The term Irish English is often used to cover all of them. In any region, H-E approximates the dominant dialect. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jack - hi! I have just removed those "fact" tags from Hiberno-English and inserted a reference. McArthur's three-part split of the types of English spoken in Ireland seems unduly complicated. Maybe some historical validity, but not much in accord with what happens today! Dolan's dictionary defines H-E simply (and, it would seem, sensibly) as "the Irish use of English". Come to think of it, maybe that's a definition which should be added to the article. Mind you, most of the article (while largely a reflection of how English is used in Ireland) is very poor and unreferenced rubbish... Snalwibma 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
...just like most other articles on English dialects. Someday I'm gonna blow them all to smithereens. (Now that's a word with "Irish" written all over it...) —JackLumber /tɔk/ 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

Just so you are aware, on your userpage.... ugh, I wanted to edit it -- in good faith. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but this sentence confuses English that much more! lol:

I have heard the the English language is the one with the most rules and the most exceptions to the rules.

I'm sure you meant to use "that the English language...", right? I've done it many times, myself. But, when you are writing about English usage, it better be correct! :) I'd want to know if I made a mistake such as this. It is common! (I didn't read the whole page, so you may want to give it another once over.) - Jeeny Talk 19:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ps, you can delete my post whenever you want. - Jeeny Talk 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good. Thanks for the message. I was going to give it a harsher critque, but decided against it, since it is a user page. I'm very glad I didn't now!! LOL! - Jeeny Talk 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Thank you for bringing to my attention another point for consideration about {{sp}}. Just so you know, I have moved your message from the template's documentation to the template's talk page.

By the way, your user page gave me a smile. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 19 05:10 (UTC)

Thanks! The "essay" on my userpage is a disjointed rant by User:Ammbaani that first appeared in the English language article. I thought it was fun... —JackLumber /tɔk/ 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey man, or you a moderator, or editor or whatever?--PoidLover 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No special rights, see here. SalaSkan 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


You may be interested in the history of my talk subpage since you corrected the many faults in my argument - obviously I rushed it and hadn't researched some of my arguments enough {except for the EU Commission as you pointed out :) }.

I will attempt at reorganising that page when I have the time. I got a little way through. BennelliottTalkContributions 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

US states[edit]

Why did you revert my move? "List of United States states by area" sounds a little strange ;-) SalaSkan 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

List of United States doesn't make sense. What about List of Netherlands, List of United Kingdom, List of Germany...? —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"United States" is plural, whilst the other nations you mentioned are not. Also, List of U.S. States is rather pleonastic as the word "states" is included in U.S. already. SalaSkan 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


The reference you provided doesn't have the IPA listed on the page. -Ravedave 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I disagreed with Jack on this bit, it does have one, namely [5]
"Main Entry: Min·ne·so·ta

Pronunciation: \ˌmi-nə-ˈsō-tə\ " SalaSkan 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Language skills[edit]

Final word I have to say on this ridiculous issue. WP:SKILL. SalaSkan 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I imagine there are multiple definitions. --Ptcamn 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To the POV pushing vandal[edit]

You are the one who is vadalising an article that was correct. 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible impersonator[edit]

Hey Jack, are you aware of this possible impersonator? SalaSkan 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I found out about him accidentally, a couple months after registering. (If I had known, I would have chosen another username.) Apparently he has been gone for a while now. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Finnish profanity[edit]

I have to contest your prod. Being an actual Finn, I can attest that the article is not OR. It sticks strictly to the facts. Nor do I see anything that would be by its nature unverifiable - there's no reason against there being sources about profanity. I do not consider List of profanities the parent article, as the Google cache shows that to have been a completely indiscriminate list of simple dicdefs. Finnish profanity limits itself to a small representative handful (honestly. There are thousands.) with the very best-known and iconic expletives and discusses (rudimentarily, admittedly) the social significance and international reputation of Finnish profanity, both of which are real. "Unencyclopedic"? Addressing that word in full would take several hours...

I will add literary sources, but need the time. It'll take until after the weekend at the least to track down a copy of the Great Book of Swearwords, much less a 2007 edition. I'll also look into expanding the coverage of the article and import some data from the Finnish wikipedia. --Kizor 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


I noted you changed "second" to "sophomore" in the article about Epiphany (album) citing that US-English was appropriate for the article, and "sophomore" is also a Brit-English term.

As a British English speaker I would contest the latter argument - I had never previously heard it. I checked the Concise Oxford English Dictionary and it describes it as a US term to describe a 2nd year student, which is somewhat different in use. The article you found, being a university publication, may expect students to understand the term but if the dictionary definition is correct it would be a bit of an "in joke". (Even so, I would guess it may have been written by a US student.)

I cannot fault the argument that this article favours US-English. However, "second" conveys meaning and is correct in both variants, and for that reason I would suggest favouring that as a universally understood word. If this reads too simply, perhaps "follow-up" would be a good alternative.

I leave this to your discretion.

Ros0709 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

site:uk "sophomore album gets 17,000+ google hits; the phrase, ubiquitous in contemporary music jargon, appears to be familiar to various wikipedians from all over Europe, and is well established on Wikipedia. Feel free to revert, however. It's not major. —JackLumber/tɔk/ 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it gets "about" 17,000 hits (many apparently from US sources), whereas site:uk "second album" gets about 283,000. 'Sophomore' is not widely used in the UK; and is not as widely understood, internationally, as "second". The Compact Oxford Dictionary definition is "noun N. Amer. a second-year university or high-school student."; note "N Amer.", meaning "North American". Please desist from your bizarre crusade to apply the word across Wikipedia. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"second album" is a more general phrase; however, I'm merely countering Violetriga's crusade. Nobody except Violetriga ever complained about it. Please note that I'm not changing articles on British, Australian, Irish, or South African musicians. —JackLumber/tɔk/ 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm complaining. I'm not really interested in "...but he started it" justifications; only the fact that you're changing good copy for bad copy. Please desist. Wikipedia articles are read internationally, not just their home countries of their subjects. Write accordingly. And please archive your over-long talk page, to make it easier to edit. Andy Mabbett 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad timing. A lot of those "sophomores" were written by Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French, and even English editors. I didn't, however, revert to sophomore where it wasn't appropriate. —JackLumber/tɔk/ 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've raised the matter at WP:ANI#Sophomore - second albums. Andy Mabbett 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack - I just stumbled across this because I happened to look up Magnum Force (album) and was utterly foxed by the phrase "sophomore album". Then I discover it's down to you, and that you are apparently inserting this phrase in lots of articles. Take it from me - it means nothing (nothing, nothing, nothing!) to this particular well-educated and well-read speaker of British English. IMHO it also renders the article meaningless to a sizable proportion of its readers. Why not simply "second album", if that's what it means? Snalwibma 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you insist on changing "second" to "sophomore," personally. Saying their "second album" makes just as much sense as saying their "sophomore album." Why should it be changed? In matters of personal preference and the British and American forms of English spelling, you go with the original version used in the article (or the original version used when the article began and keep the same form), so I don't see how this is any different.

It doesn't matter who "started it." Enfestid 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just it---I reverted to the original versions. —JackLumber/tɔk/ 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)