User talk:Trevayne08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hi Trevayne08, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Sgt. Pepper straw poll[edit]

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. madkayaker (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possessive form of words ending in -s[edit]

Unfortunately, the situation is not as simplistic as you claim... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lobopodia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (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) 08:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radio telescope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna (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) 08:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Local Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andromeda (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) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

features of 1553B[edit]

I undid you addition to the list of features of 1553 because it didn't improve the list as it was. Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't see it as an improvment to this highly technical article, but can't be arsed to edit war over it.Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your responses.

Who is engaging in an "edit war"? Not I.

Regarding "this highly technical article": one does not need highly technical skills or particularly detailed knowledge of the 1553 bus architecture to recognize when a Wiki about it demonstrates lazy (or faulty) cognition and flawed sentence structure, as this otherwise excellent write-up did. One simply needs good proof-reading skills.

It would be like saying that people who are not experts in laser theory and operation would have no business correcting the following sentence: "Diode-Pumped Alkali Lasers (DPAL) owe there high efficiency ratings to the very small quantum defects between the upper level spin-orbit states of Rubidium and Cesium, at 2% and 5% efficiency, respectably." ("their" and "respectively" are obviously the correct and intended words).

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Links[edit]

When correcting pluralisations, please do not change links from working links to (pluralized) redlinks and then remove the link as not-existing. This is what piped links (example: [[leading edge|leading edges]]) are for. Converting a valid link to a variant-spelling/pluralisation redlink and then removing the redlink for being a redlink can be considered disruptive, so please in the future pipe links when you are making edits like this. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Only[edit]

Is there a grammatical rule you're following here? It is not obvious to me that these changes are an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kvng - thanks for the response.

No, there's no grammatical rule that I'm following, with regard to the "misplaced only" issue. I usually overlook the misplacement of the word "only" in casual speech, but it seems to me that Wikipedia articles deserve a bit more formality and precision.

Example:

"I only have two hours to complete the project.", which is imprecise and improper, but acceptable in casual speech.

- versus -

"I have only two hours to complete the project." - which is more precise, and therefore more proper.

Your work on Virtual LAN involves something a bit more complicated:
Original
can only partition per physical port (if at all)
Yours
can partition per physical port only (if at all)
Another alternative
can partition only per physical port (if at all)
I'm having a hard time determining which of these is best and don't understand why you consider the original imprecise. I'm just trying to determine whether these changes are improvements or just changes or changes that have the potential of unintentionally changing the meaning of sentences. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Kvng -

To clarify, the phrase "can only partition..." in the original context is awkward, imprecise, and bordering on the nonsensical. In this instance, the word "only" (which is an "auxiliary modifier"), when placed immediately before the word "partition", pointlessly restricts action to "partitioning", when it's clear that the subject, "physical port" is what is intended to be restricted. In other words, the intent seems to be along these lines: "make sure to partition per physical port, and only per physical port" (as opposed to, say, groups of physical ports, or even "per virtual port"(?), or "per software port").

If "can only partition" was indeed intended, the intent here would be to caution against doing something other than partitioning the physical port (such as pouring steak sauce on it, for example). I am highly dubious that this was the intent. Trevayne08 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

    • By the way, "per physical port, only" is equivalent to "only per physical port", and just as proper, but its usage in that manner is a bit stilted, and is becoming obsolete, it seems. ** Trevayne08 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. To summarize, your improvement is to place the modifier closer to the subject it intends to modify. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


    • Yes, I agree completely, Kvng. I wish I had put it the way you just did, at the outset. Placing the modifier as close as possible to the subject it intends to modify makes for clean, clear and tight sentences.

Mira Variable[edit]

Regarding the "Mira Variable" article: the reason for my inclusion of the etymology of the Latin word "Mira" in this article was simply for the sake of providing detail. It is not at all unusual to see the etymologies of words or terminology in Wikipedia articles; indeed, the practice of citing them ought to be encouraged and more widespread. Summarily deleting my inclusion of this etymology with no explanation or justification is both arbitrary and precipitous. I find it objectionable. Such behavior often results in pointless edit wars, which benefit no one. So let us agree to avoid one. Trevayne08 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)