User talk:Caduon

I love you

hello Caduon,

A red rose to someone who is in my heart.
--'--,--@ the guy in n° 189.4.30.29 (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)'

....Thank you? Caduon (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Excessive commas

MOS:COMMA: "Modern practice is against excessive use of commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed."

"Mr. Jones died due to a heart attack."
"Mr. Jones died, due to a heart attack."

"Lucy gathered plums and raspberries."
"Lucy gathered plums, and raspberries."

"In 2012 there will be a presidential election."
"In 2012, there will be a presidential election."

(I've seen you add commas [no comma here!] according to the second structures. That's excessive!)

Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ihardlythinkso! Thank you for your tips. I agree fully with the first two rules and don't believe I have violated them (or have done so frequently). However I find the third rule somewhat questionable - I don't find it in the MOS page that you linked to and I'd like to know where you got this rule. The first part of the sentence "in 2012" is a preposition and therefore by convention is separated by a comma. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. Caduon (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I did just a little searching, and found this.

(Under COMMA RULE #4.)

Usually, it is NOT necessary to use a comma after short introductory prepositional phrases.
Example: During 1984, the temperature set records.

It would be excessive to put a comma after every sentence starting "In [year]", and it seemed to me you were putting commas in those situations at every opportunity!
Try this out:

John: "Bill, did you ever propose marriage to that high school sweetheart of yours?"

Bill: "In 2005 she said 'no'. In 2006 she said 'no'. In 2007 she said 'maybe'. In 2008 she said 'no way'!"

Bill: "In 2005, she said 'no'. In 2006, she said 'no'. In 2007, she said 'maybe'. In 2008, she said 'no way'!"

(The extra pauses are excessive and unnecessary. (And, ... interrupt "flow"!). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that if one wishes to improve the sentence's "flow", one should rephrase the sentence. Perhaps: "She said 'no' in 2005 and 2006, 'maybe' in 2007, and 'no way!' in 2008." "Flow" doesn't change grammatical rules.

Here is a reference from (what many would recognize as a more reputable source) Purdue university about comma usage:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/ - see Rule #10:

10. Use a comma to shift between the main discourse and a quotation.

- John said without emotion, "I'll see you tomorrow."

- "I was able," she answered, "to complete the assignment."

- In 1848, Marx wrote, "Workers of the world, unite!"

Caduon (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"More reputable source"? I did only a quick search to serve your question about "never heard of that rule - where did you find it". It wasn't a contest of sources. (The point is, comma is not needed after short introductory prepositional phrases, like "In [year]", and, that you've been adding commas repeatedly in articles, seemingly at every opportunity.) Your Purdue source is talking about "shifting between the main discourse and a quotation", so, that is changing the subject. That is a different topic. I created an example for you above [John & Bill] showing you how ludicrous it is to add commas after every "In [year]".)

If you want to keep defending your edits, go right ahead. You seem to be stuck on "all prepositional phrases must have a comma" *rule*, and things aren't as simple as that. But if you want to force your rigid understanding on all articles you edit, be my guest. I'm not here to "fight you" on the topic, and I won't waste time responding to your defensive counters. I felt the need to say something to you, since I see you leave a wake of edits according to your ideas re "flow", which are often not needed, incorrect, and do damage to meaning based on arbitrary ideas you have on punctuation and sentence structure. That creates work for other people to fix & restore. I'm done talking w/ you. Bye. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh - p.s. Your idea to rewrite what "Bill" said, is *invalid*. (Why? Because he already said it. It's a quotation - you can't alter it, rearrange the words, or rewrite it. All you *can* do is punctuate what he said. [Preferrably w/o excessive commas.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I just thought your "corrections" of my edits were overly harsh (and perhaps not all that well-thought out), and that you might do well to use a softer hand in the correction of other editors' mistakes. The fact of the matter is, that you seem to be at least as stuck on your "anti-commas" rule as I am on my "pro-commas" one - I certainly haven't reverted anyone's edits that were the specific removal of such a comma. I don't believe my commas have altered the meanings of anything I've added them to - I assume this "wake" is a reference to the specific edits you reverted, each of which I questioned you on individually on your talk page. I haven't reverted your reverts, because I thought it rude to not allow you to give an explanation for how each edit had done a disservice to the article. (There are only two or three in question). If you're not reading this as you claimed you wouldn't, then please disregard the preceding message. Caduon (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointless to continue. You're never wrong. LOTS & LOTS of articles have "In [year]" w/o comma, I'm not "stuck on" anything, I simply respect what others wrote, unless there is GOOD REASON TO CHANGE IT. You haven't had those good reasons, only a misguided personal standard. GOODBYE! I'm done with you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While there's nothing personal about my standard, I respect your point. I shall respect others' punctuation (or lack thereof). Through the course of this argument, I've realized how preposterously inconsequential the presence or absence of such a comma is. Thank you, it's been therapeutic. Caduon (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wichita (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) 10:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bill of Rights Institute logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bill of Rights Institute logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to take a look at our first article.

Hi! We are students writing an article on Manzanillo Port as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedia and have an interest in these kind of topics, we would like to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time.--Alexisfn1997 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)