This user may have left Wikipedia. JackLumber has not edited Wikipedia since 19 June 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

The user talk formerly known as User talk:JackLumber presents

^{a1 a2 a3 a4}

Regional vocabularies of American English

Hello, I just thought you'd like to know that I de-PRODed this article and sent it to WP:AfD instead. I agree that the article is unencyclopedic and doesn't belong, but due to the articles extensive history I felt it should go through the AfD process. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional vocabularies of American English.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Beat It" is a hard rock song

Hi,I am the main author of "Black or White" article. READ THIS RELIABLE SOURCES: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Christopher+P.+Andersen%22+%221994%22+%22Michael+Jackson%22+%22Beat+It%22+%22hard+rock%22&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=yb_ghov9uEMC&dq=%22black+or+white%22+michael+jackson&q=%22Beat+It%22+%22hard+rock%22

--Alexanderfriend (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single/Double Quotes & Punctuation

Dear Mr. Lumber, (aka, He Who Knows All!),

Long time no convo! I have a query for you, which is as follows:

We all know that the British use quotes differently than do you and I, namely,

they use single quotation marks (i.e., “inverted commas,” as they call ’em!) where we use double ones;
they use double quotation marks (i.e., “double inverted commas,” as they call ’em!) where we use single ones;
we place our punctuation (e.g., periods/fullstops, commas, etc.) within the quotation marks, while they place them without;
etc., etc. (See here.)

QUERY: When did this start?

I ask this because I have been reading some first edition Agatha Christies from 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 (times 2!), and 1925 that do not follow this pattern. All are U.K. first editions, published and printed in the U.K., for sale in the U.K.. Throughout each of these books, the use of single/double quotations and the placement of punctuation is the same as we currently do here on this side of the pond. Conversely, a recent U.K. publication that I read, and that was published and printed in the U.K., uses the current idiosyncratic U.K. method that we have come to know and “love.” But, these early- to mid-1920s publications are as ours are here. One caveat, Christie switched publishers in 1926 and I have not read that one yet — starting it this weekend! — and so cannot comment on which “system” was followed by that publisher. — I am SpikeToronto (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) and I hope you approve this! :)[reply]

There's always been a lot of confusion about quotation marks. For example, the following paraphrase could be styled in several different ways:

George W. Romney made it absolutely clear, "I didn't say, 'I didn't say it.' I said, 'I didn't say, "I said it."'"

In Continental Europe, the picture is even more complicated. The French and the Germans have two different quotation systems, both of which are different from either British or American English; but French and German users in Switzerland have their own system, which is different from both.

Most of the differences involving quotation marks are indeed the result of changes in British rather than American practice; apparently, The King's English by Fowler & Fowler played a key role in the switch from double to single quotes as well as from "typesetters' quotes" to "logical quotes." (rather, "logical quotes".) Back in the early days of printing presses, commas and periods (the smallest pieces of type) were more easily damaged if placed outside of the quotation marks.

I actually don't know why the " " themselves have two different names in British usage. The phrase inverted comma dates as far back as 1789 according to Merriam-Webster; quotation mark was first recorded circa 1859, but it doesn't appear to be an Americanism. Then again, many if not most punctuation marks go by different names in Britain and U.S.! Period and full stop, for instance, were both in use in the UK at the time of Fowler, with different shades of meaning (I don't remember the details).

Convo must of course be an Australianism.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer! It was very informative. I especially love the Romney quote: What a politician! I found some discussion along the lines of your comments here at Wikipedia. You might want to peruse it for its accuracy. I had never read Fowler’s before following your link: It’s rather flippant, isn’t it?! Finally, I don’t know that convo is exclusively Australian. It may be. I’ll have to check my Aussie dictionary! Don’t they also use it in the U.K.? Of course, we can always be retro and use confab! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, up until 60 years ago or so, the authors of usage handbooks and the like loved to be so damn prescriptive, and their readers were pretty happy with that--on both sides of the pond. Which is why, for instance, Webster's 3rd was basically regarded as heretical upon its release back in 1961.

Many Australianisms are now used in colloquial British English too, for example uni for "university" (used in much the same way as college in the U.S.), which has replaced varsity in the UK and elsewhere. (Not to be confused with varsity as in a sports team, which of course is a US-ism.) A few other colloquialisms ending in -o or -ie, formed by shortening and alteration like arvo (for "afternoon") or carbie (for "carburet[t]or") are still, I believe, characteristically Australian.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get over how much those two cultures love using short forms! I am constantly hearing them on our nightly CBC broadcasts of Coronation Street. I notice that the female characters seem to do it more often, which may not be an odd observation since a psycholinguist I used to know told me — in discussing the female Appalachian accent versus the male — that it is not unusual for women to have accents, vocabulary, and general speech that is recognizably distinct from their male counterparts … but I digress. In any event, I notice the female characters using words like leccy for the supply of electricty as in “the leccy bill.” Or, bessie for best as in “my bessie mate.” Or, prezzie for present as in, “I gave her a prezzie for her birthday.” I notice the short forms every bit as much when watching Australian programming, hence why I bought a great big ol’ Aussie dictionary. Oddly, Canadians hardly ever use short forms. H*ll, they won’t even use them with people’s names: Robert is always Robert, never Rob, Bob, Robbie, or Bobbie; Michael is always Michael, never Mike, Mikey, or Mickey; etc. Now, Canadians do say university where Americans say college, but only because what a Canadian calls a college is a community or junior college in the American sense, whereas any degree-granting insitution is a university.

Now, back to our original topic: I have started Christie’s 1926 work and it is punctuated exactly as are the earlier works. That is to say, they are puncuated in what we might call the American style. Just thought I’d update you on that! Oh yeah, and something else you might find interesting, when a quoted phrase ends in a period, it is placed immediately after the word at the end of the sentence, as one might expect. But, when a quoted phrase ends in a question mark or an exclamation mark, those punctuation marks are placed with a space between the last word and the quotation marks. For instance: “Is it cold outside ? ” Odd, eh?

— SpikeToronto (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You’re Back! <yeah!>

You’re back! Was about to write you an e-mail to enquire as to your whereabouts, if I could get my Outlook up and running, that is. Glad you’re back! Silly edits on the pages to which you contribute have been proceeding apace. Go get ’em! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sooner or later, vacations/holidays (including those of the Wiki- kind) must come to an end. This Monday is Labo(u)r Day; after that, the whole continent will be up and running again--until, of course, the H1N1 virus destroys us all and wipes out civilization. But first, I hope to find some more time to edit Wikipedia, given that I've got a lot of catching up to do. If you want to e-mail me, use the "E-mail this user" link on my userpage; the Yahoo account I once had no longer exists--it got corrupted or something somewhere along the line, in April or May 2008 I guess. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s going to take you forever and a day to review all the changes made to American and British English spelling differences by 98.67.109.232 (talk). I have never seen such a feverish editor! He’s done more rewrites/additions to the article than I thought possible. And, he never uses an edit summary. By the way, there’s no email link on either your User page or your Talk page … unless I’m blind. So glad to have you back! Were did you go on your holidays, by the way, if I may be so bold as to ask? — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conn. My parents' home. Not a bonafide vacation, not a stay-cation either. Some of those edits do have a point, but some are just annoying and unneeded paraphrases. Anyway, I'm gonna have to take yet another wikibreak--I'm currently experiencing some technical issues, so my long weekend is going to be even longer, at least wiki-wise. I'll be back sometime next week. Happy Labor Day! I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 14:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I fixed the e-mail link on my userpage. I had forgotten to (US)check/(UK)tick the "enable e-mail from other users" box![reply]

Since you brought the wonderful {{Reference necessary}} template over from either the French or Italian Wikipedias, would you please weigh in on the conversation over at WP:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Reference_necessary? Thanks! — Spike (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in time, I guess. I didn't create the template myself, but I saw it in action at both fr.wikipedia.org and it.wikipedia.org, and I thought it could come in handy. Thanks for the heads-up anyways! I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love this template! I think your comment was spot on and only hope that it helps. Although, the deletionists always seem to carry the day. Thanks! — Spike (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to save this template in its TfD debate! At least it seems to have been given a reprieve. I like the direction you’re going in with the gray font. I tried it in my sandbox and think it might be a wee bit too pale, though. Would you consider a darker gray from here, here, or here? Thanks again for your efforts. Would you like me to work on the documentation, or would you like to do that also? Thanks again! — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I just used a garden-variety shade of gray, but apparently there are many more out there than I would have guessed. It has to be clearly different from the regular black font, not too distracting, and of course readable. Not an easy trade-off.

I was also thinking about a different issue, however. The reference necessary template should be functionally equivalent to the citation needed template. That is, it should (1) automatically place the articles containing it into appropriate categories of "Articles with unsourced statements" and (2) allow for a date of the form "Month yyyy" as an optional parameter. I don't know how to do that, though. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 04:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That’s absolutely brilliant! I just always assumed it made the category adds and put the dates in. In fact, when I use the {{Fact}} template, I never put the date in knowing that some bot will come along and add it. I’m basically a lazy bugger … I think the category thing would not be too difficult. I might be able to figure that out it you wouldn’t mind me stepping on your toes in the template coding. As for the bot adding the date afterwards, that is SmackBot. I think, when we’re ready, we just go to that user page and ask its master to add the template to its list

Finally, as for the color, I agree with you one hundred percent that it “has to be clearly different from the regular black font, not too distracting, and of course readable.” But, I found that some wikieditors, once that other editor made it bright yellow, were merely deleting it without adding a citation, simply because they couldn’t stand looking at it. Thus, when I noticed how pale plain gray is, I was afraid of more of the same. So, I was thinking that we should try for a gray that is a little darker, while still being clearly not black. I think that wikieditors should notice the words, “citation needed,” and then have their eye discover the slightly different hue of the font indicating the sentences needing citation(s). Thanks for all your efforts. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How do you want to proceed with the documentation? — SpikeToronto (talk)

P.P.S. Let me know what you want me to do! (Be nice …) — SpikeToronto (talk)

Curriculum vitae

I have started a move discussion about CV, Curriculum vitae and Résumé. You have previously participated in this topic, and I would like your input in this discussion if you are still interested. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American and British English differences

Back in June 2008 you made this edit. Does the reference you supplied cover all the points that you made including "some (but not most) British writers prefer"? --PBS (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article of Interest for You

Hi Jack! I thought that you might be interested in this article from a recent issue of The New York Times Magazine:

McKean, Erin. “Redfining Definition,” The New York Times Magazine. December 20, 2009, p. 16.

You might find it of interest, if not of use, with the many language articles that you edit on Wikipedia. Enjoy! — Spike Toronto 18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates Reference necessary & Citation needed

Hi Jack. I do not know if you are very active any more, but I wanted to bring to your attention a merge debate that might interest you. You may recall that you participated in a deletion discussion for the template, {{Reference necessary}}. At the time, there was no consensus so the template was given a reprieve. It has since been dramatically improved.

In any event, an editor has suggested that it be merged with {{Citation needed}}. That discussion is here. While the merger will essentially achieve a deletion of the {{Reference necessary}} template without putting it to a TfD, there is a logic to the merge since it would make such inline templates easier to maintain and administer. Once merged, to achieve the same {{Reference necessary}} result, you would use {{Citation needed}} exactly as you once used {{Reference necessary}}, with the same resultant wrapper effect.

Unfortunately, the editor who proposed the merger, hived off to WT:MOS the discussion of how the template uses a very subtle line under wrapped text. That discussion is here. WT:MOS is an area concerned mainly with the esthetics of wikiarticles. I personally feel that that is the wrong jurisdiction as it will spell the end of the subtle underlining, which is the essence of {{Reference necessary}}. Thus, through the two simultaneous discussions, the editor making the proposal will, in my opinion, have achieved what the deletion discussion did not. It is either very clever, or a completely inadvertent, unanticipated coup. I think that if the subtle underlining is to be debated separately from the merge debate, such debate should not occur at WT:MOS. Rather it should occur at WT:V because these are not style templates; these are verifiability and citation templates.

I am not suggesting how you should weigh in on this matter, if at all. That would be canvassing. I am merely bringing the debates to your attention so that you may consider your own response, if any. Relevant discussions are at the following locations:

Template talk:Reference necessary#Overhaul → The discussion is marked resolved inasmuch as the debates have been moved elsewhere; however, the discussion may be relevant to you because not all of it is repeated elsewhere.
Template talk:Citation needed#Merge from Template:Reference necessary → Scroll down past the struck out text, there is relevant discussion before the reproposal.
Wikipedia talk:MOS#An issue returns: Underlining/highlighting as a cleanup signal → This is the debate whose purpose is to render the wrapper function useless and will most likely succeed because this is the home of the esthetics “police”.
User talk:SMcCandlish#Templates Reference necessary & Citation needed → This is where I have most recently raised some of my concerns with the drafter of the two proposals.

Have fun! — Spike Toronto 08:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian English

Hi JackLumber! An article you have contributed to may need your expertise. It has been tagged for a very long time as being in need of attention to avoid possible deletion of unsourced sections according to Wikipedia policies. If you have a moment, please see talk:Malaysian English and address these issues if you can help in any way. Kudpung (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Usage of the terms railroad and railway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Usage of the terms railroad and railway 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/Usage of the terms railroad and railway 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. Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms not found in American English listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of terms not found in American English. Since you had some involvement with the List of terms not found in American English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of words used mainly in American English listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of words used mainly in American English. Since you had some involvement with the List of words used mainly in American English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of words mainly used in Commonwealth English listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of words mainly used in Commonwealth English. Since you had some involvement with the List of words mainly used in Commonwealth English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of words mainly used in American English listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of words mainly used in American English. Since you had some involvement with the List of words mainly used in American English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]