User talk:Lincoln Josh

Welcome!

Hello, Lincoln Josh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boldness

Bold is good, but moving a bunch of pages without discussion is disruptive. Is there any discussion on these moves?

Have you read WP:ENGVAR which specifies that arbitrary changes from one spelling convention to another must not be done. Please stop and allow other editors time to consider the situation (i.e. a few days). You should expect to be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving various "signaling" to signalling pages is not welcome. Please revert your edits. Glrx (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, people, I've made some reversions. I can't see that much has changed: anyway I excluded the reverted things from my watchlist.

Some things were remained. I didn't manage to find so easy a way to re-re-name as for edits' undoing. Anyway, the redirections, which were created automatically, have remained. That is, it's unlikely to experience much difficulty searching those things with American spelling.

By the way, I must notice that at one or two pages there was yet inner discordance: not in terms but in the plain text, one sentence contained "signaling" while another showed us "signalling". Lincoln Josh (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why have you changed spelling on Dieffenbachia to British spelling? I'm not seeing that the article is from a British point of view or anything. - Denimadept (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just was about there inserting a couple of nbsps:) Lincoln Josh (talk) (In fact, can't bear such a vainly ambiguous suffix as this "-or".) Lincoln Josh (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 2013

In a recent edit to the page Equatorial mount, 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. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "r" in pronunciation guides

Please see WP:RHOTIC where it says:

It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent, for example observation as /ɒbsərˈveɪʃən/. Speakers of non-rhotic accents, as in much of the UK, will pronounce this [ɒbsəˈveɪʃən], and those who merge /ɒ/ and /ɑː/, as in much of the US, will pronounce it [ɑːbsərˈveɪʃən], but since such variation on the part of the speaker is automatic, it does not need to be spelled out, at least not in the case of a simple pronunciation guide to a key word in an article. Indeed, the Help:IPA for English key, designed for readers who are unfamiliar with the IPA, simply defines the sequence /ər/ as the sound at the end of runner, and warns that it may not be distinct from /ə/ for some people. That is, there is little point in transcribing observation as [ɒbsərˈveɪʃən], [ɒbsəˈveɪʃən], [ɑːbsərˈveɪʃən], or [ɑːbsəˈveɪʃən], depending on accent, and this would add a considerable amount of clutter to the article.

Note the last sentence in particular, in relation to articles such as Lancaster, Lancashire and Morecambe. Wikipedia's convention, which may differ from other publications, is to include the "r" even though some accents, including British Received Pronunciation, may not pronounce it. Ironically, Lancashire is an area where "r" is often pronounced: see Rhotic and non-rhotic accents#Development of non-rhotic accents. -- Dr Greg talk 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of such corporative peculiarities
However "convenient" is it amongst rules holders on the site, my point remains simple: the Encyclopaedia is written not for those who're submerged in all that stuff - I mean only -- but for the public. For the public, it is unlikely if all the other dictionaries they see on the Web are wrong when a couple are right. Another point: when it will be ok for almost everyone in Europe (not specifically learning American or Irish English), the clear schwa may encourage those Americans - being interested in places etc. within the Isles - to look up for "what the hell do those damn Brits do with their mouths!".

Simple.
Lincoln Josh (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2014 (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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lincoln Josh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lincoln Josh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]