All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501 - - (Generated (using "subst:") from 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) revision of user-Jerzy-talk generating template User:Jerzy/Fresh Talk Page, based on 3 January 2009 revision of User talk:Jerzy plus dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases, minor typo fixes, and a new link.)

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

Search user languages

Rough Overview of this Page

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)
1. About Communicating Here
2. Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
3. Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives
4. Detailed Table of Contents of whole page
Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)

Communicating here

Leaving me a message

The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:

You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
As the last line, type
--~~~~
Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

Leaving followup messages

If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading

[edit]

Click on that "[edit]" link.
Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
As the new last line, type
--~~~~
Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

Guide to the Rest of This Page

The remaining material consists of

A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved
(These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)
A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives

"Phases" of my Talk Page

The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.^[1]
The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).^[1]
The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.^[1]
- Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
  I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
- Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
- Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.
  If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.

Notes re history irregularities.

^ ^a ^b ^c Phases 6-8 accumulated to excessive length as an oversize page, and were separated into these phases using edit-history splits.

Mixed-topic Archives

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

User talk:Jerzy/Archive Index

Note that the Mixed-topic Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Topical Archives

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

TRAC Programming language (6.7 kB, 2004 Nov 8)
Carleton College (9 kB, 2004 Nov 6)
Wikipedia Categories (9 kB, 2004 Nov 4)
Turkey (often re Armenians) (19 kB, '04 Jul - Oct)
Jerzy as Administrator (16 kB, '04 Sep- Oct)
Dialogue with Adam Carr (14 kB, 2004 Jul 16)
List of people by name (14 kB, '03 Dec - '04 Mar)

Note that the Topical Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Archiving Work in Progress

"Dig we must."

The presence of this section indicates that any discussions that i consider still active have been temporarily exiled to an archive page. Please be patient; they will reappear here.
--Jerzy•t 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions that are still not reflected here will progress no further.
--Jerzy•t 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply-named section American warning"> American"> American warning">

Former Titles of the Section that This Section Concerns:

Talk page work

~~Talk page work~~ > American warning

This section still awaits testing as the target for the following lks to titles that were formerly on this talk page:

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning and

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work .3E American warning.

[[User talk:Jerzy#American warning]]

[[User talk:Jerzy#> American warning]]

[[User talk:Jerzy#~~Talk page work~~ > American warning]]

User talk:Jerzy#> American warning

Details, and the removed material from that section and its successor, are now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.

Notices:
I hereby give due notice that i place the following reasonable constructions on the apparently widely accepted statement that i have seen on at least one project-space page, to the effect that msgs removed by a user from their own talk page may be presumed to have been read by them:

Archiving a talk page, with a link to the archive, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements.
Removing the text of a discussion on a talk page for stated good cause, stating that cause, stating that it is to be considered as "included, by reference, as part of" the page, and providing a lk to it on another WP page, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements (nor for that matter is it equivalent to "archiving", FWIW).

In light of each of those constructions, and the statement that follows this paragraph, i note that (altho i at least skimmed large sections of the former text before my statement to the effect that i did not intend to give attention to further additions to it), i do not warrant myself as having detailed knowledge of what i read, nor sufficient knowledge to place what later portions i have since noticed into any meaningful context. I thus declare any inference that i am informed about the material in question to be abusive and unfounded.
I have removed from this talk page the text of the section most recently titled "~~Talk page work~~ >American warning", because its length approximated 26.5 Kb, rendering impractical normal use of the talk page without neglecting the long-standing request to avoid letting pages approach or exceed 32Kb in length. It is, however to be considered as included, by reference, as part of this talk page. For perhaps a few days, it can be accessed on my archive at User talk:Jerzy/Phase 03#Talk page work .3E American warning, and i will alter this section accordingly, when that material moves from that archive page to its own page.
--Jerzy•t 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removed material is now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.
--Jerzy•t 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3500

re Three-Five-Zero-Zero (& Hair (musical)#Pacifism and environmentalism) :
Hi Jerzy! I've been working on the Hair article for awhile .. i just put in a cit. needed tag for the "sometimes misquoted as Christmas in Niggertown" that you added to the 3500 article - not sure where you got that and also not sure it belongs in the article - let me know what you think .. thanks! - Mblaxill (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the lyrics for the 1st time & was stunned (once i got over the impression that some careless transcriber had perpetuated a typical classic WP screwup) to discover i'd misunderstood them for so many decades. Google search shows it's rare, but that i'm not the only one. Probably, at best, "occasionally" is closer than "sometimes. You'd wouldn't be crazy to remove it as too rare to matter, but i'd feel more secure in copying this discussion to the talk page and leaving it in the article for a time, to see if it elicits further opinions (perhaps longer than it would normally take, due to this start-of-summer lull in editing).
One problem is that (my impression is) most lyrics on line (and probably many elsewhere) are just fan transcriptions by ear. And that the truly reliable source is so closely held that somebody pays the composers' agents big bucks to have them for the duration of the the run, probably posts a bond against failure to return all the copies, and library purchasing departments need not apply.
The value that i impute to including such info is that acknowledging the confusion serves better to rule out doubt than does pretending the situation is perfectly clear, or insinuating that it is (to say it from a different angle).
That's my view, but i leave it to your judgment, or the talk page's, if you're willing for that.
--Jerzy•t 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine .. i think the article is better now. All best - Mblaxill (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find "it's a dirty little war" in the "WVS" passages i cited, and those passages make it unlikely that it says "Prisoners in Niggertown, It's a Dirty Little War" as I Got Life Mother claims, rather than (in fact) "... prisoners in Niggertown" and (speculatively, and much later or earlier) "It's a dirty little war". I'm not sure how strongly your wording will suggest the "IGLM" version to others; and of course you may have a better source than that blog (...Like the print edition of "WVS", i 'spose! -- I'm too lazy.)
--Jerzy•t 02:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those are song lyrics from the original Bway script .. we're talking about the song in the article and comparing it to the poem .. also don't understand all the abbreviations .. whats IGLM? - Mblaxill (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"IGLM" is just the (apparently clueless) blog lk i had given above in the same contrib, and "WVS" is the Ginsberg work we've been mentioning, "Wichita Vortex Sutra".
But OK, i get it: You mentioned Hair (musical), without lk'g to it, and "3500" w/o using its actual title, and i looked at the diffs-only view of what i presumed to be your relevant edit (missing its actual context) w/o paying enuf attention to whether you changed what i wrote or what you had previously done in the other article. And my previous response reflects my assuming that you likely knew something i didn't, when you added

its a dirty little war", echoing Ginsberg's lines

instead of (my) assuming your not caring that someone might infer that it was also Ginsberg who repeated "its a dirty little war". Your change would have been misleading in that way if added to Hair (musical)#Pacifism and environmentalism -- it would suggest AG wrote "It's a dirty little war" -- but it does little harm in Three-Five-Zero-Zero where it is followed by what Ginsberg did write. Sorry for subjecting you to my confusion.
Having disposed of that, please consider the casing and punctuation, and don't rely on the script unless that is your term for the score. The first ten hits on

"Three-Five-Zero-Zero" lyrics

agree that those words span two lines, and each line starts with a cap. IMO, if you want to write them on a single line they should read

Prisoners in Niggertown / It's a dirty little war

(common sense and the unanimity of those ten hits BTW require the apostrophe), reflecting standard practice with non-musical verse and avoiding the suggestion that they constitute a unit (a single non-sentence, so to speak).
Frankly tho, i think that you are asserting your personal interpretation of the lyrics in regarding iadlw as providing context to piN, and acting on it calls for a citation about a consensus that the sequence of the two lines is more than just a matter of the lyricist needing to put something before and after each line, and not caring about their logical relationship. (My personal opinion was that "Christmas in Niggertown" is like "Holy shit!", so that the two lines amounted more or less to "Wow, this war is bad." Knowing that piN is three words out of a coherent 3-line sentence by Ginsberg leaves me profoundly agnostic as to whether any part of the song is more than fuck-the-war verbal chop suey.)
--Jerzy•t 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)

(re The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement))
Actually, for what little its worth, new religious movement tends to be used for virtually any new "church" started in I believe the last 200 years or so. I think it has to do with the fact that syncretic material tended to become incorporated into the newer churches fairly regularly around that time. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fascinating tip, Dr. Carter. (Do we have an article that discusses that, or even do you happen to have at least a hint of why then? Am i right that that's too early for the higher criticism -- the only thing i know about theological politics between George Fox and John Wesley -- to be a factor? Oh, yeah, a lk means an article.....)
I assume "FWLIW" means you realize that Dab users are not expected to know that!
--Jerzy•t 01:35 & 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart

(I.e., Heartland.)
What on earth is the justification for creating List of institutions and events with Heartland in their name? It is entirely blue links. Why do these not qualify for the main Heartland list? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are merely being casual in disparaging the list/Dab distinction. And you might well be exercised if you had just gone thru all of WP:MoSDab. "What on earth" is its companion WP page, and what i had in mind in saying what i said on the Dab's talk page was Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches, which is pretty clear (tho it lacks the pop-culture chuckle):
Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.

I may have kicked out a few that should come back, since i was relying on my gut about the unlikelihood of confusion for those whole respective classes of title -- in contrast to what i did today with Latent, leading me to kick out 4 of the former 6. In this case i didn't check the articles AFAI can recall; if you find that some of them refer to their subject as "Heartland", that would go a long way twd justifying the restoration of those specific entries.
--Jerzy•t 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I had never encountered the list/dab distinction before. The problem is that your division seems totally arbitrary: four educational institutions are left in the main list but four commercial ones are moved out. I think a single article is better but I will not meddle. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how far back it's been recognized, and i admit the distinction is much clearer in theory than in practice. But it is a fundamental issue from a practical point of view: Dabs longer than is made necessary by the job they are intended to do waste the time of users, and are thus bad for the project. My division was subjective, but not arbitrary: my judgment is that notable schools using the word are much less common than notable companies who do; this implies that including school entries is more useful than company ones (bcz users are more likely to hear or read refs that assume the full name is not needed) and less burdensome (bcz there are fewer of them). (I don't recall noting if that is the case with the crop i found, but if they aren't i would still expect them to grow slower and thus eventually be overtaken by the company ones if we offer what many readers (and promoters of their own enterprise or employer) will treat as precedent.) It's worth noting that i was only partially reverted by the next editor, and that the companies were more likely to be left removed than sports usages, which corresponds to my notions of the order of their relative worthiness -- even tho drawing the line at a different point.
As to the separate file, i prefer hearing my editing decisions described as involving a "strange fork" (by one colleague in this case) over my unilaterally consigning YMMV material to the bit bucket (or the theoretically immortal but IMO inadequately inspected edit history) -- even tho i do not contest deletion of files such as the SIA.
--Jerzy•t 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Ph6-1] Phases 6-8 accumulated to excessive length as an oversize page, and were separated into these phases using edit-history splits.

[1]

User talk:Jerzy/Phase 08