User talk:Jayjg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Centres around/on, once again[edit]

Hello- I see that you have resumed your campaign to change every instance of centres around to centres on. As several of us told you in November 2014, you are out of line. Please do not continue with this obsession; it generates tedious clean-up work for your fellow editors. @Nafsadh, Qwfp, and Tamravidhir: Eric talk 03:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May be you can take this to WP:ANI. --nafSadh did say 14:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Eric. I see you have pinged the people who commented negatively back in November 2014; however, getting agreement or support from the same individuals is not the same as an indication that I am "out of line", as you put it. Let's examine their objections:

  • Qfp's point was simply that While "centres on" may often be a sensible replacement for "centres around", in a couple of cases I had made an actually incorrect substitution, to which I agreed, and for which I apologized. That is not the point you are arguing, nor is it the case here, so I don't think that's particularly relevant.
  • Tamravidhir's argument was either that I was an WP:SPA or that I was spamming. Given my varied contributions to Wikipedia, the former is patently absurd, and the latter doesn't make much sense as far as I can tell. I don't think his arguments supports yours.
  • Nafsadh's argument was that this edit didn't "preserve the meaning" of the sentence, and therefore I didn't "read [the] articles or follow [my] edits". Since the sentence before and after had, in fact, the same meaning, Nafsadh's argument was also unpersuasive - and, more to the point, not at all the argument you appear to be making.

Now let's get down to your argument, which is that while "center on" may sometimes be preferable, "center around" is an acceptable idiom. Let's look at two of your sources; the Merriam-Webster Dictionary states "Center around, a standard idiom, has often been objected to as illogical. The logic on which the objections are based is irrelevant, since center around is an idiom and idioms have their own logic. Center on is currently more common in edited prose, and revolve around and similar verbs are available if you want to avoid center around.". The American Heritage Dictionary states "71 percent of the Usage Panel accepted center around in the 1996 survey, suggesting that, logical or not, center around must be considered a standard idiom".

So it's true quite that some sources indicate that "center around" is acceptable. However, you admit that "center on" "is certainly sometimes preferable", and no reliable sources that I am aware of indicate that it is preferred. Even your source the American Heritage dictionary indicates that 29% of their panel did not accept "center around". Moreover, many other sources do not accept "center around". For example, the Oxford Dictionaries usage note:

The construction center around (as opposed to center on, or revolve around) has been denounced as incorrect and illogical since it first appeared in the mid 19th century. Although the phrase is common, it defies geometry by confusing the orbit with the fixed point: the earth revolves around (or its revolution centers on) the sun. A careful writer will use a precise expression, such as centers on, revolves around, concerns, or involves. "center", Oxford Dictionaries.

Other sources give similar advice:

"The term center around is illogical because the two words conflict with each other. (It is an oxymoron.) However, through common usage, center around has become an idiom meaning to make something a point of focus. It has probably developed from people taking elements from the terms revolve around and center on, both of which are logically sound themselves. In formal writing, it is best to avoid the term center around and use an alternative such as center on or focus on. ""Center On or Center Around?", Grammar-Monster

Other sources are even more emphatic:

Do not write center around because the verb means gather at a point. Logic calls for center on, center in, or revolve around." center, New York Times Manual of Style and Usage

Other style guides agree, as this source points out "British and American style guides generally advise against this usage on the grounds that it is illogical. The preferred prepositions to use with the verb center/centre are on and in...", and goes on to quote several style guides in support of that point. Note also, the point that this is not an issue of American vs. British English.
In summary, while some sources indicate that the term is acceptable, others are strongly against, it, particularly in "careful" or "formal" writing. An encyclopedia is not a novel or letter, but rather (one hopes) a carefully written formal document (we avoid, for example, the use of contractions, despite the fact that they are common and perfectly acceptable in informal writing). It's true that one of the many things I often do in the course of my wikignoming (what you repeatedly and rather uncharitably describe as an "obsessive campaign") is to change "center around" to "center on". The real question is, under what circumstances (aside from a very small number of actual errors), would one ever revert such a change, much less claim that it "generates tedious clean-up work for your fellow editors"? Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I pinged all the users in those two discussion sections. That you see their input as negative is your view. I see it as helpful. There was no support for your campaign. As for the logic of center around, we are talking about common English figurative usage, not mathematical analyses of orbits. Eric talk 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
To summarize the salient points:
  • While the other users' views may have been "helpful" in some sense, they certainly weren't helpful to your argument, since none of them made the argument you were making (and in fact, two of them weren't making any coherent argument at all).
  • What you (continue to) pejoratively describe as a "campaign", is, in fact, merely wikignoming, something that is viewed quite positively on Wikipedia.
  • Most critically, while some reliable sources indicate that "center around" is acceptable, none suggest that is preferred, and many reliable sources state that "center around" should not be used, particularly in careful or formal writing, exactly the kind of writing required in an encyclopedia.
If you object to my editing, the onus is on you to come up with some sort of source or policy based reason. As the posts above show, so far you haven't; "stop doing this just because I object" is not actionable on my part. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Not actionable? Really?? Are we in some low-literacy business meeting? This isn't about one person objecting to your editing. Several people commented to check your campaign crusade favoring one preposition over another in a common expression that employs either preposition interchangeably. Eric talk 01:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Saga characters[edit]

Hi. I have reverted your edit to the List of Saga characters article for the following reasons:

On Wikipedia, citations used multiple times in articles are placed at the end of the supported material in numerical order from lowest to highest. I have never seen them intentionally placed highest to lowest. (If I'm mistaken and you know of a policy/guideline/MOS that says otherwise, please link me to it.)

In his cited review of the series, Keith Silva of Comic Bulletin explicitly called Izabel the series "most unique" character, which you can read here. You changed this to "most unusual", which is not what he said.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)