Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Proposed deletion of Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale"

The article Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a random intersection, equivalent to People in Grimsby with blue eyes". It;s amusing, informative, even interesting, but totally non notable. This is WP:TRIVIA and has a place in a miscellany, not an encyclopaedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

   I've just ended my effort that began with my ProDing of what was then Dale, Virginia (which i regarded as misuse of Dabs to benefit braindead users) and the creator's de-ProD. I renamed to Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" and changed course from moving on to AfD, when i realized that Smith, John is being tolerated as a Rdr. If i get notified that someone takes up an AfD banner for any of the pages we've mentioned, i'll support deletion of each of them.
--Jerzy•t 21:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
   On second thot, and just for the record, i think your argument is sound when applied true articles but very weak for SIAs, which much like Dabs are meant almost entirely as navigational mechanisms and don't exist to provide "real" information. Both Dabs and SIAs should IMO look a lot like a miscellany. Just for the record.
--Jerzy•t 21:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If you feel there is merit in this article and are sufficiently bold, why not take it to AfD yourself as a contested PROD? I have not recognised this page as a Disambiguation page, hence my PROD and reason. An alternative is to make it unmistakably a disambiguation page. So far the title is against it. The PROD process will give you thinking time. Nothing is urgent. I see it very much as a random intersection, and will take a lot of convincing otherwise. Fiddle Faddle 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm
I was originally going to create Dale, Virginia as an {{r from incorrect name}} to Dale City, Virginia, but I discovered that alot of other Virginia cites had the word "Dale" as part of their name and could conceivably be mistakenly refereed to as "Dale", so I want with a disambig instead of a redirect. Jerzey objected to the disambig, so we used WP:BRD to come up with a compromise, the current Dale, Virginia and Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale". I would not object to making both Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" and Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" unmistakably disambiguation pages (under a "Dale, [state name]" title), ether that or the current state is fine with me, but I'd imagine Jerzey would object for the same reason he objected to my original "Dale, Virginia" disambig. I don't really understand Jerzey's objection. I'm not as familiar with disambigs as I am with redirects, but if Jerzey is arguing that we shouldn't have disambig equivalents of {{r from incorrect name}}, {{r from incorrect name}} are a well-established form of redirect, and considered useful to the reader. I don't see why a disambig would be different.
As for the Smith, John redirect, such redirects are more then tolerated, they are encouraged. It is true that naming conventions call for "[first name] [last name]" titles, not "[last name], [first name]" titles. That is precisely why it is a redirect (a {{R from modification}} in this case), it can not possibly be an article title. "Smith, John" is not an accepted forum of "John Smith" as a Wikipedia article title, but is is accepted as a valid English language form of "John Smith", so it's a redirect. Our readers are not bound by our article naming conventions, they can and do search using other valid English language forms, or even some invalid ones such as {{r from incorrect name}}. This is a huge part of the reason we have redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I do not accept your rationale I have taken this to AfD. The community will decide formally now. This will either delete the article or bolt it firmly into place. Either outcome is acceptable. My opinion is that it requires deletion. Fiddle Faddle 06:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. You said "An alternative is to make it unmistakably a disambiguation page", and I agreed. Why would it require deletion, can't we just make it unmistakably a disambiguation page? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not appear to me to be unmistakably a disambiguation page. If t appears so to others then they may !vote to retain it. You may also edit it to avoid any confusion. For me it s still not an article for Wikipedia. We have no reason to agree, of course we don't. Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't yet. Jerzy and you disagree with the forum that the West Virgina and Virgina pages should be in, whereas I have no opinion. The way I saw it we were discussing what the forum should be. I hadn't changed the forum because we were still discussing it. I removed the PROD only because I thought the page should be kept in some forum, not necessarily the current one, and the PROD templeate says "You may remove this message if you [...] object to deletion for any reason". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It was perfectly understandable that you removed the PROD. I disagree, hence I have nominated it as a contested PROD. I am not disagreeing about the form the page should take. I disagree with its existence. The good thing about AfD is that others make a value judgment and they decide. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused about what you meant proposed making it unmistakably a disambiguation page, if you disagree with its existence. One of us is probably missing something that the other is trying to say, but maybe this isn't worth trying to figure out; this isn't just between the three of us anymore sense it's at AFD. I guess I'll vote at the AFD when I'm felling more awake. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As sleep clears you will see that you removed the PROD but had not altered the page in any substantive manner, referring here to your rationale. Odd;y there is no real rationale present for not deleting the page, just a discussion about the page. There is nothing confusing here unless you cling too strongly to the straw of disambiguation page look and feel. The more I look at it the more I see it as WP:TRVIA. Change my mind by editing the page or by arguing skillfully at AfD, the location where you will change other people's minds, too. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organization (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The Organization", [[Communist_Party_of_Kampuchea#The_Angkar|Cambodian governing body ''Angkar'']]), led by Pol Pot

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francis L. Hawks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • works in the then-young science of [[Archaeology of the Americas|American archaeology]].)
  • not state someone's paraphrase of that as documented fact.}} published until 1842.<ref>[http://www.worldcat.org/title/new-york-review/oclc/6951098/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Heinz (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flip-side (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-Dabbing Kundalini

Hi Jerzy. I see that you're currently working on the various Kundalini pages. Some background on the term and its uses:

  • Kundalini energy is a yogic principle connected to the chakras and the central nadi (energy channel). It's a yogic theory of unlocking energy from the base of the spine and sending it upward toward the crown of the head and beyond. It is central to both physical and philosophical aspects of many forms of yoga.
  • Kundalini Yoga is a modern school of yoga that highlights the notion of kundalini energy. Hence the article previously titled "Kundalini" referred to kundalini energy.
  • It makes sense for the Dab page to just be the straight "Kundalini" and rename the energy page "Kundalini energy". Kundalini Yoga can remain where it is because it apecifies a partical style of yoga (cf: Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, Anusara Yoga, etc.) Morganfitzp (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

copied & answered at sender's talk.

Thaks Jerzy, looks great! Morganfitzp (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Good Morning!!! (Australian show), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages News reader and Live to air (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indenting of your comments

I'd like to respectfully request that you stop "manually" indenting ("&nbsp;&nbsp;") paragraphs in your talk page comments (I mean, outside of this talk page, of course). It makes the "flow" of the discussions harder to follow, since indenting is already used to distinguish different users' comments.
   Welcome to WP. But with all due respect, the substance of your request will be more worthy of a response when you show enuf knowledge and concern about what of makes WP talk effective that you sign and date your contribution to any section (other than the lead section) of any talk page.
--Jerzy•t 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Need for Speed (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clandestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Home organization

The article Home organization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence to suggest that this is notable as required for an encyclopedic topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(Tin box)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tin box, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. . (Not strictly the case, but I have opened a merge discussion - it looks like you created the article by redirecting copy from Tin can - now it appears some editors want to send it back again. Please do comment on the merge discussion if you want. Thanks!) Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psycho cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psycho II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Psycho cycle

The article Psycho cycle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary; redirect to Psycho (disambiguation), which has much of the same information.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Fortdj33 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Kundalini article

Hi there, please refer to the talk page of the article previously known as kundalini. I have stated that your changes were unnecessary, unhelpful and had no consensus. Out of courtesy I ask that you revert them immediately. Please use the talk page for any further discussion. Freelion (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed no longer Kundalini, which is now a Dab. Talk:Kundalini Rdr's to Talk:Kundalini yoga, so that is probably the talk page in question. Let's see what the scoop is.
--Jerzy•t 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the proper place for discussion is the original talk page for "Kundalini", which you have renamed "Kundalini energy". Please continue our discussion on its talk page where I have left a question for you. Freelion (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
   Actually, the proper place is the disambiguation page for "Kundalini", but now that i'm aware of what it was you were trying to say about where, and i've made a link to it, let's let expedience win out over propriety.
--Jerzy•t 21:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Jerzy, please answer the questions waiting for you at talk:kundalini_energy Freelion (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC):
I think i'm between 5 and 15 minutes from the end of a days' work on that talk page.
--Jerzy•t 03:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Come on Jerzy! Do the right thing, I know you want to. Save me the trouble of calling an administrator. Freelion (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
   Well, shame on us both!   Shame on me for pridefully thinking no one could slip the Fallacy of the undistributed middle past me! And shame on you for committing the fallacy in your mangling these two compatible but logically unrelated ideas: "K urges J to do what K thinks is right." and "K knows that J wants to do what J thinks is right." And shame on me for thus suspecting you of blatantly asserting something along the lines of your ability to read my mind ... when all you were really doing was mumbling. Or equivocating. Or both.
   Well, no harm done, in the end.
  1.    Be patient, and i'll take on the burden of the writing the G-tests that will objectively identify the primary topic of "Kundalini". I haven't before now bcz i was slow to pick up on the evidence of how stubborn you are.
  2.    CRD is a wonderful rule when the change in question is an edit: reversion of an edit is a trivial process. I'm not sure if i've ever read the guideline carefully enuf to be sure it acknowledges its assumption that the change is an edit. I assure you that the sequence move-and-refactor, un-refactor-move-back, and discuss is madness.
       Now, i want to acknowledge that there is at least informally (in the form of the templates for requesting moves) a guideline about discussing before moving/renaming (the distinction is seldom attended to; we only provide for one of them & which we do to simulate the other is only worth thinking about when you're actually doing it), which i IARed. You may feel a little better knowing why i ignored discuss-before-move.
       ... but i can't make sense of that for you for at least 12 hours.
--Jerzy•t 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
For such a verbose reply, you stubbornly continue to avoid the point. How does the bold revert discuss cycle not apply to you? Freelion (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
   Your stubborn demand to understand immediately issues that you've clearly demonstrated, at the article's talk page, are over your head, makes this entire process chaotic. Now, a good rest or so later i see that your frenetic demands pushed me into saving an edit (the one i'm now adding remedial material to) that i can't see how to make sense of, after you distracted me. Your edit prevented my save at that page. I'm not sure I'll be able to reconfigure it into the page without a good rest. In case i decide to try saving to it before leaving the keyboard, watch for my in-use lock there before editing.
--Jerzy•t 08:32, 10 & 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
   It's clear that you haven't seriously considered whether you have the slightest inkling of what the point is. "How does the bold revert discuss cycle not apply to" me? Because it doesn't say that anyone has to go back and revert their own move (let alone a good faith one), but rather that others are justified in reverting their content revisions. (At least their content revisions, and see i already made the point above, that that guideline shows no indication of consensus
(the discussion that led to BRD may show it, if you want to take the trouble to find and interpret discussions that may have been as cryptic as your unlinked reference to "the talk page of the article previously known as kundalini")
that restoration to status-quo-ante was intended to warrant counter-renames, whose impact is far beyond the usual situation where
anyone can do the reversion with essentially a keystroke, and
a clear record of both revisions is made, automatically and universally accessibly, in the history.)
As i've already said elsewhere, i may have erred in applying IAR to the practice of seeking consensus before a rename, but if so i did it in good faith. And the MOS exists to aid users of the 'pedia, not to force me to make you whole when i've been involved in your disappointments.
--Jerzy•t 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Jerzy, I believe you are making things way more complicated than they need to be. It's really a very simple concept over at the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. First someone makes a bold change (as you have done), then if someone else has a problem with that change, they revert it. This puts the onus on the first person who made the change to start a discussion on the talk page and try and reach a consensus. In this case, since you have created a disambiguation page and renamed the article, it is not so simple for another editor to revert. It's a technical job which may take administrator status to complete. This is why I have begun the "requested technical move" on the Kundalini energy talk page. So Jerzy, what I am expecting you to understand is that you have made a change which is being challenged. Since I am not authorised to revert your change, I expect you, as an administrator, to do it yourself. Do you get my point? Freelion (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not here to meet your needs, nor to take your unsolicited advice. I'm prepared to offer you advice if you request it. At this point, i have communicated with you far more than i care too, and unless you would be interested in my advice to you, i ask you to stop leaving me messages here, and i am likely to choose to ignore what you say elsewhere. Happy editing.
--Jerzy•t 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Finkel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Finkel

The article Michael Finkel has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of AfD Nomination of a page you created

Hello User:Jerzy this message is being posted to inform you that an article you created Mad Hatter Studios has been nominated for deletion as a non-notable company/organization and not meeting WP:COMPANY. You are welcome to contribute by voting FOR or AGAINST the AfD nomination or to put a comment but under no circumstances should you edit, change or remove the AfD tag from the article's page until such time as the nomination has been officially closed by a Wikipedia Administrator. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Decoupling (mathematical analysis)

I am dubious about this article. Can you shed any light on it, for example by way of verification in independent reliable sources? Deltahedron (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I marked it for speedy deletion. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Move reverted.

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Martian has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. bd2412 T 14:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs

The article List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced listcruft

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Katharine Cook Briggs listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Katharine Cook Briggs. Since you had some involvement with the Katharine Cook Briggs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. My Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The caps "I" in English

Haha, noticed that on your user page (I only got here because you have a notification for a redirect under discussion at WP:RFD).

It is a peculiarity that "I" is caps in English whereas in most other languages it is not. On the other hand, German which your user page says you speak quite well capses a lot more nouns than English has; English used to do so until about the late 18th century but German still caps every noun, and you could equally say that is peculiar.

What I think is the worst struggle for learners of English is the pronouns and apostrophes "it's" vs "its" etc (and for English people to), which if you look at them are completely illogical. The apostrophes were only introduced as printers' marks in the mid to late 19th century but a grammarian got hold of them and suddenly they became God. It is completely illogical to say "yours" but "Bert's", for example. Si Trew (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for those insightful comments. (And for your wonderful coinage into print of the perfectly logical usage, as a declined verb, of "capses"!) I adopted my odd habit quite intentionally but without any insight into the actual history of the upcasing, tho i eventually learned that any of the "exaltation of the self" which i imagined was at most an incidental effect, rather than the underlying cause of the illogical usage: i don't recall where i learned the truth, but it seems that handwritten lowercase "i" had a tendency to be mistaken for a stray mark on the page (especially, i assume, when the dot at its top was either not yet a standard usage or ink accidentally connected the intended dot to the main stroke), and occasionally at least to distract readers if not actually to leave them befuddled by what they read.
   On the other hand, i won't fully endorse your opinion that the noun/pronoun distinction is "completely illogical". Confusing, yes, and in fact confusing to the point of "too bad it worked out that way". But actually the underlying logic is sound, and IMO it's too bad society hasn't done a better job of encouraging awareness of the logic: I knew someone who had a dog named Him (but i don't recall if there'd been one named Her). Note how the casing resolves the ambiguity. (TMI: My father had a story i think of as "Sticky-Sticky-Stambo", a child whose full given name had about 20 or 30 syllables, and his brother named "No". He saved No's life by running to say "Dad, No fell into the well!", but later was drowned in the well himself bcz delivering the corresponding message took No too long for the alert to be timely. IMO the moral is that language evolves, other things being equal, to be efficient in use.)
   Anyway... we surely capitalize proper names bcz cultures advanced enuf for writing are complex enuf to expose some of their members to proper names that are novel to them as proper names but may coincide with ordinary nouns, and upcasing helps us distinguish proper names from the corresponding ordinary nouns (or corresponding misspellings of ordinary nouns). Pronouns are indistinguishable from nouns in terms of their grammatical roles, but differ from pronouns in being sharply limited in number and simultaneously far less limited in what they might refer to: in literate cultures, the number of ordinary nouns is too large for nearly anyone to know how large it is, while the number of proper nouns is unlimited and the number of them known to an individual is likely to increase every year, perhaps every day.
   Worse yet, spoken English uses the same aural sign (-s following some sounds, -z following others) on nouns and (some but not all pronouns), for three functions: plural (the cats; i know 3 Franks; (but they/them NOT e.g. hes or hims), possessive (the cat's, Frank's, its, but your NOT yous or you's), and contraction of "is" or "has" (the cat's in, Frank's out, she's been here a while but i'm [not Is nor I's] late).
   IMO we need to take account of spoken language being overwhelmingly a medium of immediate interaction between speakers and listeners; in contrast, written language is predominantly unidirectional, and, traditionally and still overwhelmingly, interactive only on a pretty long time scale. Tone of voice eliminates a lot of ambiguities, and interactions via "Huh?" or silent (or even subliminal) cues offer speakers great opportunity to detect and quickly remedy ambiguity. In contrast, written English uses apostrophes to reduce ambiguity. It would be easier to spell if we had two separate marks for elision and possession, but what we have settled on is,
in the absence of a possessive punctuation mark or a special s (lower-case only!) used only when indicating possessive case
neither an accident nor a usage contrary to simple logic.
   The logic is this: apostrophe (as distinct from "single"-quote) has two meanings:
  1. to indicate representation of a pronunciation corresponding to omission of one or more letters, no matter what part(s) of speech is/are involved
  2. only before or after terminal S, and only at the end of a noun, to indicate that the noun in question is (whether plural or singular) also possessive in its case.
What is implicit in that, and what confuses people and invites claims of illogic, is that each pronoun, whether nominative or possessive, and singular or plural, is a unit whose ancestral development probably had logic to it at each step, but that logic has no continuing relevance. The current situation is that each instance of person, number, gender, and case has its own word, which lacks the apostrophe that applies to the possessive of nouns. (It probably lacks it bcz every native speaker knows the personal pronouns -- if not their [lack of] punctuation -- without having been given any rule.)
   The idea that "it's" is "logical" flies in the face of the fact that the apostrophe-S spelling applies to virtually all if not all nouns, but could be applied to derive from a nominative pronoun only that one of the possessive pronouns:
I; my & mine
we; our & ours
thee; thy & thine
you; your & yours
he; his
she; her & hers
it; its
they; their & theirs
(Anyone who suspects that "our's", "her's", and "their's") are commended by the same rule should bear in mind that, say, bank's and Frank's are all-roles possessives derived from their nominative cases. The pronounal (pronominative?) predicate adjectives ours, hers, and theirs relate to the possessive case forms that directly modify nouns, not to the nominative case pronouns that would correspond to possessive nouns.)
--Jerzy•t 03:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the apos being used for the possessive is
  1. Most people get it wrong ("greengrocers apostrophe" POTATOE'S 25p/lb etc)
  2. It is understandable when the possessives of pronouns dont have apos whereas possessives of normal nouns do
  3. It was first only used for the plural nouns to distinguish e.g. Jesus' love from seventeen Jesuses. It then just kinda became established not because people actually used it that way but because some prescriptive grammarian told them to and it kinda stuck.
I am one of those people who just would banish the apostrophe, other languages manage without it (at least as a case marker) perfectly well and in speech we don't use it or distinguish with it, so there is no need to in print.
As for the "capses", thanks for that I hadn't even noticed, but of course in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got some typos in here but I assume that you accept they are just that and not kinda stupidity on my part.
It would also be lovely to have a plural "you" as well, in the North-East of England one has "yous" and in Southern USA one has "y'all", and in Liverpool "yous", and that to me is a useful distinction but "not standard". One could also do with "one" to mean anybody rather than just the Queen (I know that is not quite true, but to use it in daily life sounds very arch,which it doesn't in French or Spanish or Hungarian, I don't know German) and these things have kinda been ripped away from us by the 19th Century prescriptive grammarians, so we have to say "you make your tea and you eat it" instead of "one makes his tea and he eats it" when one wants a general example rather a specific person, in speech that sounds very arch to say "one" but if one says "you" then the other person can think you are talking about them personally rather than people in general. The prescriptive grammarian H. W. Fowler in Modern English Usage probably put his foot in it there with his article "the false first-personal one" and made people scared ever to say "one". Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is useful or not, regarding the apos: I bank with Lloyds Bank and actually my branch is on Lloyd's Lane in the City of London. It's a short road from Fenchurch Street down towards the River and the Tower of London(Lloyds Register of Shipping is opposite the branch – the two Lloyds are only vaguely connected in history with Lloyds of London). Lloyds Bank took the apostrophe out of their name some time ago, well before their recent branding, about twenty years ago, but directly above the "Lloyds Bank" insignia the street sign says "Lloyd's Lane" has an apostrophe. I am not saying please rename the street. But I have mentioned this to a number of bank staff and they were entirely unaware of the discrepancy or the fact that Lloyds Bank had dropped their apostrophe some time ago. That is why I think they are redundant since in daily use most people don't notice that they exist or know where to put them. I do know where to put them but they are a nuisance nowadays really, especially with autocorrecting tablets and God knows what that are forever getting them wrong. They served their purpose but unfortunately are now moribund and should just be deleted. I think one UK newspaper, I forget which (The Guardian would seem the most likely) just decided to drop them for its house style.
(Maybe I just rob the bank and steal all their apostrophes.) Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way "Sticky-Sticky-Stambo" sounds like one of the Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling, I am not saying it is and I don't have any refernces here (Sambo?) but it seems suitably racist and funny for it to be Kipling. Not saying it is but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am wrong. There's an article here at Tikki_Tikki_Tembo. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Flanders and Swann also have a comic song about Tonga, that goes like this:
It's hard to say "oligalukanuchachichichi"
But in Tonga, that means, "No"
If i ever had the money
Is to Tonga I should go
For each lovely Tongan lady there
Will gladly make a date
And by the time she says "oligalukanuchachichichi"
It is usually too late.
But Donald Swann was an accomplished linguist and this was written purely for its comic value as a little insert, not as any offence to Tongans. I should not be surprised if some people now genuinely believe that "oligalukanuchachichichi" is the Tongan(?) for "No". It seems patent to me that common words tends to be the shortest because over the years/centuries/millenia people abbreviate or change them to make them easier to say rather than having to say it in a longhand fashion. That is why Scope got redirected from Scope (disambiguation) the other day, for example. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way sorry if I sound like I am patronising you with the links etc. I put them in cos it is an interesting discussion and I can imagine it might move to some linguistics page or be referred back to from there so I am putting in more links than I would do if we were just having a natter (well we are I hope but it is a very interesting one). I note in passing you abbreviate "because" to "bcz" whereas I abbreviate it to "cos", and that's another whole can of worms really - you are probably better because "cos" of course in that sixteenth century chap I forget his name Bill Shakes or something has always meant cousin although not necessarily literally (but literarily) so I think that is quite a good abbrevation and I might start using that if you don't mind. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks for the cheeseburger, but I didn't see your reply, so I am deliberately opening a new section so you can point me at it. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

ping User:SimonTrew: Actually, I gave you the burger, but formatting problems on your talk page made it appear as though Jerzy sent it... NorthAmerica1000 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Strong (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Strong (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strong (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people with initials J. G. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with initials J. G. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with initials J. G. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Musa Khan (defendant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Musa Khan (defendant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Khan (defendant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SMS Talk 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Khan (defendant)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bowfinger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com/reviews/reviews.php?review=okavchitram "Oka V Chitram - Review"], TotalTollywood.com]</ref> and [[The Hindu|a major print daily]] opined "Looks ... inspired from ... Bowfinger...."<ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of people by name

Wikipedia:List of people by name, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of people by name and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of people by name during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted it under CSD G8 (as List of people by name was deleted a while ago), along with Wikipedia:LoPbN index-template generation and Wikipedia:LoPbN Meta-structure. Graham87 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Italic title

Hi, you didn't need to do any of this: the |italic title=no was already present (see previous edit) and {{DISPLAYTITLE:''i-Lived''}} does exactly the same as {{lcfirstitalictitle}} - which was also present already. The advantage of {{lcfirstitalictitle}} is that it doesn't need to be adjusted if the page is moved at a later date. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

   OK, and thanks. I went wrong at several points:
  1. I finished reading a page discussing italic/lc issues without being clear enuf that lcfirstitalictitle supports complete solutions to these problems, and that the continued value of directly using DISPLAYTITLE concerns only the rare pages that need display-title adjustments beyond that combination of title attributes.
  2. Most or all of the articles remaining on this listing are not really acceptable, by reason of carrying ugly warnings like the 3 on this old revision of the article "i-Lived"; they also often failed to fix the display title. I was flummoxed until i spotted an instance of the first parameter of an infobox explicitly setting "italic title" to what may be the default, "force", and soon satisfied myself that "no" for that setting, plus use of DISPLAYTITLE, cleared the warnings -- without realizing that "no" plus use of lcfirstitalictitle would have done the same.
       So thanks for my needed smack-upside-the-head! I'll continue working thru that list, but start using the template instead. In case your interest in the general case is enuf to use Sorry! (Documenting fact of both my earlier mistaken & later curative edits.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20140801000000&limit=12&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Jerzy&namespace=0&topOnly=1 a nearly completely relevant portion of my contribs record between 03:56 and 07:14, 28 July 2014 in hunting-down-and-killing my (IMO) venial sins, note that the list filters out (inter alia) all but my last edit to a given page.
  3. I didn't catch on to the fact that a page, i-Lived, that i
    - thot i had finished with had been edited or reverted by a third party (before you [one of the "1st & 2nd" parties in this talk-page dialog] helpfully weighed in),
    - assumed i'd left that window without editing, and
    - probably in effect reverted the third party by reconstructing the (i supposed, unsaved) markup, then saving what i assumed was my un-saved earlier edit (but actually counter-reverting).
   FWIW, the reason lcfirstitalictitle does the same thing is that it uses DISPLAYTITLE to do it, but as you note, the template adds intelligence. (I was under the false impression that there was some relevant issue with the template besides its precluding more detailed display-title changes.)
--Jerzy•t 05:57 &06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
   Whew, just when i think i'm out...: I think this is really the last tweak my comments need: i misstated the nature of the filtering built into the link i provided. It should, permanently, give the last 20, before the end-time, of my article-space edits that no other editor has subsequently edited. Unless you are interested enuf to soon build your own page listing, of the probably 15 or 18 links that could be of interest to you, the articles in question will gradually appear from the list that link produces as others edit those pages.
--Jerzy•t 07:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who serial titles

Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Josiah Rowe's talk page.
Message added 04:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Josiah Rowe's talk page. -- 14:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elephant-built bridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of Japanese forces, largely engaged in the logging of [[teak]] for export. The British soldier [[James Howard Williams|James Howard "Elephant Bill" Williams, who oversaw the evacuation, had worked

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elephant-built bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Log. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== WP:INTDABLINK ==

Greetings! I noticed that you created a disambiguation link at Northern Lights which initially looks like it conforms with WP:INTDABLINK, but actually uses the prohibited direct disambiguation link. Similarly, with this edit, you converted correctly formatted disambiguation links into direct links as prohibited by WP:INTDABLINK. I do not believe that it was your intent to violate this policy, but sometimes such links are created as a form of sneaky vandalism. Please do not make intentional links to disambiguation pages unless the link is piped through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect. bd2412 T 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

   Am i IYO mistaken, in thinking that my practice is a logical consequence of the 2nd case of the 4th bullet pt at WP:INTDABLINK? (Wish i'd looked there b4 nearly finishing draft 1!)
--Jerzy•t 01:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean the one that says: *Correct: {{for|other uses|Springfield (disambiguation)}} or {{for|other uses|Springfield (disambiguation){{!}}Springfield}}? That is the case for hatnotes, and uses special syntax to make the hatnote pipe the link through the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect. bd2412 T 01:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. (In fact i took up the practice you object to, based on seeing such hatnote examples, and perhaps being corrected when i removed one.) Do you mean you don't see any need to explain why the same reasoning does not apply to the IMO quite analogous situations we are discussing?
@Bd2412:
--Jerzy•t 02:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The part of the hatnote that creates the link is Springfield (disambiguation){{!}}Springfield, which makes it look like "Springfield" but link to "Springfield (disambiguation)". In any case, the first bullet point is exactly the case for non-hatnotes. I will clarify this in the section. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, tnx, i recognized the similar syntax & didn't bother to mentally parse it. And perhaps i mis-parsed the example that made me start this practice; i shoulda stuck with my original assumption that Rdr's cost was insignificant. Got it now, thnx.
bd2412}}
--Jerzy•t 02:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412:
--Jerzy•t 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It happens. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Poll tax

Hi! I realize this is from over 6 years ago, but I was hoping you could maybe shed some light on the topic. In this old discussion, you talked about the distinctive use of the term poll tax, saying "inclusion of the former "poll taxes" in the American South as instances of head taxes is a tortured treatment of the phrase: the general American understanding of "poll tax" as meaning "voting tax" (i remember being shocked at Thatcher's apparent -- to me and i think virtually all Yanks -- "tone-deafness" in naming her head tax!) no longer amounts to a misunderstanding by Americans, but to a difference in usage." There's currently a discussion about whether to move the Tax per head article to Poll tax. I disagreed because I thought that, if the concept of a per head tax and the concept of Poll Taxes in the United states were so different, it would come down to whether viewing stats indicated one topic was an overwhelmingly clear primary for the use of the term, which page views indicate is not the case (the US article in fact gets more). I therefore thought it would be silly to move the term to a name where it would A)have different possible meanings and B)not be the most common use for the term, especially when other terms used for the tax exist and have no ambiguity in their meaning. But, as I was just scrolling up to see if there was any clear answer from previous discussions, I noticed that you seemed to have some sort of knowledge on the subject (and since the other participants seem to have stopped editing Wikipedia) you might be able to tell me if I am somehow misinterpreting the use of the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Yaksar: Hi, and thanks for your interest.
   I see the above draws from my edit of 19:35, 17 March 2008.
   Mostly for my own convenience lemme reformat part of what you posted, including what you quoted from my old post:
   ... talked about the distinctive use of the term poll tax, saying
inclusion of the former "poll taxes" in the American South as instances of head taxes is a tortured treatment of the phrase: the general American understanding of "poll tax" as meaning "voting tax" (i remember being shocked at Thatcher's apparent -- to me and i think virtually all Yanks -- "tone-deafness" in naming her head tax!) no longer amounts to a misunderstanding by Americans, but to a difference in usage.
   There's currently a discussion about whether to move the Tax per head article to Poll tax. I disagreed because I thought that, if the concept of a per head tax and the concept of Poll Taxes in the ...
   OK, then:
  1.    (Tho it didn't occur to me when i responded back then) the noun "poll" is quite old and at one time meant (just, or mainly,) "head". Later it began to mean "[to] count heads [as a means of counting votes or those who share an opinion]".
  2.    (The Scottish word "pow", in the line "But blessings on your frosty pow,..." in the Burns poem -- 2nd poem before the Tam o'Shanter" heading in Wikiquotes -- derives from "poll", and refers to the aged Anderson's head, with hair white as frost or snow.)
  3.    At some point, it began to also mean "[to] count heads [as a means of deciding votes or knowing how many share an opinion]".
  4.    In American usage,
    • "a polling place" eventually therefore (at least in American usage) acquired the meaning "a place where votes are cast (and, in some jurisdictions and/or elections, counted)",
    • "the polls" can mean either "the available results of opinion polls", or "the polling places [within the jurisdiction or election district in question]",
    • and "poll tax" means, in the context of American history, any tax imposed (as was widely the case in the American South from the end of Reconstruction to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act), wholly or principally for the purpose of providing a mechanism for depriving African-Americans of the opportunity to vote. (Its effectiveness for that purpose was often enhanced with the so-called grandfather clauses -- which aimed in general at preserving the franchise of native-born whites, which in turn led to the much more broadly used expression "grandfathered in".)
         (I don't recall knowing whether it was
      • nominally required on the basis of being of voting age, and denial of the chance to vote treated as punishment for non-payment,
      • or nominally covered the cost of running elections, with non-payment being treated as implicit choice not to vote, or
      • perhaps one of those in some times and places and the other otherwise.)
   Since you asked, it seemed to me worthwhile to explain that background in detail here; i think my opinion that you found is badly flawed at least in its logic, and i intend to at least apologize on that talk page for my confused and confusing comments.
--Jerzy•t 07:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I'm not entirely sure that this means your previous comment was incredibly flawed, however. While the word poll certainly has a shared link, I don't think you were wrong that the usage in the USA has evolved to the point where it is a different meaning entirely, almost exclusively referring to a poll as an election and not a head (even if the initial word is shared in meaning). Certainly deserves to be mentioned in the capitation article, but largely disambiguating it out did not seem like a bad call.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  @Yaksar: I didn't mean to say that the move would be good, just that my original understanding of the background was incredibly wrong. I think i should not get in any deeper in the next 12 to 24 hours, but i'll probably opine for "equal" disambiguation, in part on the grounds that the false etymology (the premise that "poll" always has to do with counting how many think/want something) is a reason for, not against, "equal" dab. The correct title for an article is determined by what's good for user access, not whether all poll taxes are actually head taxes.
BTW, have you determined how many jurisdictions currently have significant capitation taxes? I'd have guessed modern ones were so rare that that the historical use in US and the campaign slogan against Thatcher (to the effect that it was a tax, not a fee), were likely to outweigh any cases (or other cases) where there's significant reliance on them for revenue.
--Jerzy•t 08:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Androcles (disambiguation)

The article Androcles (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, direct hatnote best in these circumstances

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman

Modifying the talkpage posts of others is rarely a good idea. If no one has responded to a post on a talk page or AFD, I feel free to amend or copyedit my post. Why do you find it necessary to add various time stamps? Please cite a policy or guideline, if you know of one, which justifies your modifying my post by the addition of timestamps. Clearly, I was not attempting to fool anyone and no one's subsequent comment was made confusing by my copyediting. If anyone wants to see the edit history, it is right there in the history of the page. I request that you do not add to, subtract from or modify my talkpage edits in any way in the future, unless there is a formatting error which prevents the page from displaying properly. If you see the need for my post to be edited, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Edison (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Army-McCarthy Hearings Notes

I found all your speculations great fun, all plausible, and I think you were certainly right in most, perhaps all, of them.

A pleasure to read.

Note, though, a general principle: bucolic, drunken brutes are not necessarily stupid, and even when they are stupid they are often still cunning.

Cheers, -dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  @David Lloyd-Jones: Tnx for your interest, which led me (after a couple of searches) to make some further comments at Talk:Army–McCarthy hearings#(Initial & revived thread).
--Jerzy•t 22:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Archive_4&oldid=1083601045"