Talk:Personal Shorthand

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amended so not so much of an advertisement - for example, challengeable claims of its superiority have been removed. Now just description of system, as per Gregg, Pitman etc. (Dawble 12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. Un-hyping hype is never easy, and I appreciate your effort. If inspiration strikes me, I might be able to help make the tone even more neutral. (In my first revision here, basically just prose cleanup, I removed the "or even special punctuations [sic]", because the "even" had non-neutral tone.) Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Personal Shorthand

This article seems to me to be simply an advertisement. I believe it should be deleted, marked as a stub, merged with the main shorthand article, or made into part of a new article about proprietary shorthand systems. Or ?? Too Old 19:19, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

As a casual reader, I don't see anything wrong with the page as it is. Although a short bit of information like this could be included in another article, Personal Shorthand has enough significance to have its own page, and it's possible I'd be looking for just this information. Maybe that's what the contents of the page about discussing its deletion contains, since Personal Shorthand is still here. I came here looking for a bit more information though, and an example. 151.151.21.99 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with you- casual reader, not bowled over by ad tone, etc. For the odd bits (and lack of examples), I'll try to fix them. Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: "There are six Theory Rules". Well, what are they? Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately needs examples and illustration. Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a Rewrite from Primary Materials

In spite of good attempts at cleanup, it's clear that the original author of this text had a less than superb command of the English language. Given that, and the problems of tone in this article (even though I would grant them basically good faith although way too, uh, earnest)-- I have to agree that this article needs a full rewrite. I'm going to get some books on this subject via Interlibrary Loan, partly so I can do a quick two- or three- paragraph summary plus examples, and partly because I'm curious what on Earth this system must have looked like. What where its mysterious sIx pRiNcIples!??! ooo aaah, etc. So (inhale) I hereby volunteer to be the complete-rewriter. The books will take a few weeks to arrive. Go Team Venture! Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a month later: I've gotten an English↔PS dictionary and a Personal Shorthand for the Journalist. It looks at first lk y jst drp ltrs, n whs s invtv ab tht? But it's actually systematic... at dropping letters. Basically. I shall spastically attempt an explanation, at least illucidating The Six Principles. (Fun idea: maybe a program to automated translate arbitrary English text into this. And by "fun" I mean let's write Baudot-to-UTF7 in Modula!) Sean M. Burke (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]