User talk:Scjessey

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

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.


A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png Thank you for your effective mediation on the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article. CT Cooper · talk 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows:

The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Have a beer[edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for jointly taking on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems! Having an experienced mediator there is going to be a big help. Have a virtual beer on me :) — Mr. Stradivarius 14:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a packet of crisps with that[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the dispute I raised on Billy Fox. The result isn't everything I'd want, but the other editors haven't reverted it and I think your help contributed to a compromise. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Greetings[edit]

Hi Scjessey. Just wanted to drop a quick line and say that in my estimation, the overall tenor of your editing shows that you are (a) a lot more experienced in the Ways of Wikipedia than I am, and (b) an editor who cares deeply on a personal level about Truth and Building a Better Encyclopedia. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Alastair Reynolds and fused participles[edit]

HI Scjessey,

About my (admittedly trivial) edit to Alastair Reynolds:

Your original construction is called a fused participle. Here is a part of the article about that in Modern English Usage:

A comparison of three sentences will show the meaning of the term.

1. Women having the vote share political power with men.

2. Women's having the vote reduces men's political power.

3. Women having the vote reduces men's political power.

In the first, the subject is the sentence is women, and having (the vote) is a true participle attached to women.

In the second, the subject is the verbal noun or gerund having (the vote), and women's is a possessive case (i.e. an adjective) attached to that noun.

The grammar of these two is normal.

In the third, the subject is neither women (since reduces is singular) nor having (for if so, women would be left in the air without grammatical construction), but a compound notion formed by fusion of the noun women with the participle having. Participles so constructed, then, are called fused participles, as opposed to the true participle of No. 1 and the gerund of No. 2.

Substitute technology for women and being dramatically advanced for having the vote to produce your original construction.

So I'd be obliged if you'd revert your undo.

Regards,

Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I still disagree. I don't claim to be a grammar expert, but this doesn't sound right to me in this context. I need more convincing. From here, it would seem "technology" is a nonpersonal noun. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that Mr Burchfield agrees that it is indeed a fused participle. He was a descriptivist; but as he was the editor of the OED, and I don/t want to waste your time further, I'll leave it up to you. Paul Magnussen (talk)
I agree it is a fused participle, but as a nonpersonal noun it would seem no adjustment is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Secularism[edit]

Diff, do you think the content can be put in another section and you may suggest a rewording to avoid 'many' also adding 'India' to provide context as you suggest. --AmritasyaPutraT 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please address this on the article's talk page. There is already a section for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hillary (Rodham) Clinton requested move draft[edit]

Since you are interested in the topic, you may want to help with our draft at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎, which is likely to be launched in the next week or so (after the current Village Pump discussion winds down). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)