Jump to content

User talk:Wavelength/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question on use of the plural in measurements

[edit]

Good evening,

An editor has proposed a series of article moves along the lines of "Kilometers per hour" to "Kilometer per hour".[1][2] An unreliable source states "In Standard English, [the use of the plural] crucially depends on whether the phrase is prenominal or not. Prenominally, the phrase will not show plural marking, while elsewhere it will have the normal plural marking, as appropriate."[3] This summary reflects my understanding of correct practice, but I am not aware of a more reliable source that spells out this distinction. I'd welcome a cite if you know of one.

Many thanks,

Garamond Lethet
c 04:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether or not an expression is pronominal is relevant to contextual occurrences, but irrelevant to article titles where the expression is used in isolation. A hypothetical article title "Fifty-kilometer-per-hour speed limit" should have the singular form of the measurement unit and also hyphens, in harmony with WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 3.
I examined WP:PLURAL (version of 11:51, 25 April 2013), and I found it to support the singular form "Kilometer per hour" and the singular form "Kilometer". See also http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/kilometer_per_hour.html.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just might have changed my mind. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Garamond Lethet
c 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

[edit]
Hello, Wavelength. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This link is for my convenience.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Lists of lawsuits

[edit]

Category:Lists of lawsuits, which you created, has been nominated for merging to Category:Case law lists. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Holiday Cheer

[edit]
Holiday Cheer
Victuallers talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger
When the human family has a fully competent government, then there will be something to celebrate.
Functions
Qualifications
Let us look hopefully to the future. (Jeremiah 10:23 and Matthew 6:10)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also #God's Kingdom Rules!, below.

root resorption

[edit]

Hi wavelength. Re your added see also link on tooth wear. I am not sure if you added this term to the see also because i. you consider it a type of tooth wear, or ii. just a similar type of process...

To clarify, my understanding is that external and internal root resorption are more akin to osteoclastic processes, while tooth wear is more wear and tear by mechanical friction with other teeth, from toothbrushes, and from acidic conditions in the mouth which demineralize the dental hard tissues.

So, that see also may or may not be appropriate, depends why it is there. Lesion (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you already reverted this change before I posted this message. Lesion (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

[edit]

I think reverting these changes agreed by the community back in October was rather bad form. I invite you to join the discussion on the talk page towards deciding what to do next. For future reference, I request that you inform me if you undo any of my edits, as I would do were the situation reversed. Thanks, --John (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at 00:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC).
—Wavelength (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Texas A&M University terms

[edit]

Howdy, concerning your change to Silver Taps in A&M Glossary of eliminating hyphen, you may wish to consider changing "...who..." to "...whom..." to be grammatically correct. Gig' em GROAD '71 GROAD '71 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited "Glossary of Texas A&M University terms" at 16:51, 18 January 2014. The relative pronoun "who" is the subject of the verb "died", and should not be changed to "whom". Please see "Who (pronoun)".
—Wavelength (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you so much for your help! I am a Wikipedia newbie, but a long time researcher of nuclear and environmental issues. I appreciate your help and assistance. You are AWESOME!!! Netherzone (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this kudos.—Wavelength (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much for helping me translate a Russian talk page message--as a non-Russophone--by looking up and linking to each of the words on Wiktionary! Wow!  :-) Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Thank you for this kudos. (2) I endeavored to link to an entry for the lemma of each word in the text, and I succeeded for most of the words, but a few of the lemmas were apparently missing Wiktionary entries. (3) I delayed this reply until I could link to the discussion in its archived state at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 6#Russian Text.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytising

[edit]

Hi Wavelength. You're normally better than this, sticking in your links to direct people to Watchtower resources only when they contain some information that plausibly helps answer their question. However, you've stuck in a few very questionable replies over the last few days, especially (but not only) the Moon one. Now I do understand that you feel it is very important to get people to read this literature, and to direct them to the Watchtower's website where there are all sorts of other Jehovah's Witness documents written specifically to convince people of the rightness of the Watchtower. I understand this is important to you. But this is not the place, and if you keep doing this sort of thing you're just setting the Jehovah's Witnesses up as something ridiculous. You also risk people becoming less tolerant of this behaviour, as it becomes more obvious what you are doing. If you're not careful, all your links will start getting deleted, and then you won't be able to direct anyone that way.

So I appeal to you within your own worldview: this behaviour is counterproductive. You've gone to the trouble of avoiding officially naming yourself as a Jehovah's Witness, even when directly asked, presumably to be more effective in this activity. Sticking in links that do not in any way answer the question risks getting all your proselytising labelled spam, and deleted.

Feel free to delete this post once you have read it: I won't mind, and I won't pursue this in any way. 86.157.25.240 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cautionary message. (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102014123) There is a time to be quiet, and there is a time to speak. (Ecclesiastes 3:7)
I pondered whether to follow your suggestion and to delete your message, and I pondered whether to reply and what options to choose in relation to various aspects of a reply. (Proverbs 15:28)
Contributions from the IP address 86.157.25.240 are recorded at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.157.25.240.
Contributions made by me in February 2014 (UTC) are recorded at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wavelength&offset=&limit=2541&target=Wavelength.
I searched on that page for wikipedia:reference desk, and I found 20 results, including several which are relevant to your message.
Those discussions have been archived.
In the discussion about the Moon, I provided the link http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010231#h=11:0-12:382, which attributes tides on the Earth mainly to the Moon, and which credits the Moon for the Earth's stable spin axis. Both of those phenomena are important for life on Earth.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the Moon is essential for life on Earth (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010231#h=11:0-12:382), and if continuation of life on Earth is guaranteed (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102014447), then humanity can not get rid of the Moon.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


See also #Website JW.ORG.—Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also #Bias in news media.—Wavelength (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in the family

[edit]

There is currently an ongoing deletion discussion for the article regarding Sexism in the family. Your input would greatly be appreciated.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 February 2014

Thank you for this notification. In the history of the article, I made exactly three contributions.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For my own convenience, I am adding a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexism in the family (2nd nomination).
—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this notification. My username is not listed at Contributors (maximum: 1000) for Template:Infobox film, but it is listed at Contributors (maximum: 1000) for Template talk:Infobox film, with five (5) contributions.
That discussion is archived at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 18#"Country" field (November 2010).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC) and 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation

[edit]

Good job in the math and physics articles! YohanN7 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dictionary definitions for some of the expressions are difficult to find, even in Wolfram Alpha (Wolfram MathWorld: The Web's Most Extensive Mathematics Resource). Parts of my reply are numbered for convenient reference.
  1. For the expressions "one-dimensional(ly,ity)" through "nine-dimensional(ly,ity)", each of my edit summaries refers to one or more of the Wiktionary entries from "one-dimensional" through "four-dimensional". I have already proceeded through almost all articles that use those expressions.
  2. MOS:NUMERAL has general guidelines for numbers as figures or words, but I am inclined to leave figures as figures, in forms composed with figures, such as "2-dimensional", "3-dimensional", and "4-dimensional", in articles about topics in mathematics and physics. Wiktionary has entries for those three forms. I have not yet hyphenated the forms lacking hyphens.
  3. For "finite-dimensional(ly)" and "infinite-dimensional(ly)", my edit summaries refer to wikt:finite-dimensional. I am in the midst of proceeding through these expressions at this moment.
  4. For the expressions "high-dimensional(ly)", "higher-dimensional(ly)", "low-dimensional(ly)", and "lower-dimensional(ly)", Wiktionary has no entries at this time, but the hyphenated forms seem to be preferable from a logical perspective.
  5. The expressions "finite-dimensionality", "infinite-dimensionality", "high-dimensionality", "higher-dimensionality", "low-dimensionality", and "lower-dimensionality" seem to be acceptable either with or without the hyphens, but the hyphenated forms are consistent with "one-dimensionality", "two-dimensionality", "three-dimensionality", and "four-dimensionality".
  6. For the expressions "pseudo-three-dimensional", "pseudo-3-dimensional", "quasi-three-dimensional", "quasi-3-dimensional", and similar expressions, I am planning to use the doubly hyphenated forms.
  7. For each expression like "(n + 1)-dimensional", I am planning to use a pair of parentheses and a hyphen.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are additional types of expressions with "dimensional(ly,ity)".
  • 8. For each expression like "no-more-than-three-dimensional(ly,ity)", I am planning to use a series of hyphens.
  • 9. For "even-dimensional(ly)", "odd-dimensional(ly)", and "any-dimensional(ly)", Wiktionary has no entries at this time, but the hyphenated forms seem to be preferable from a logical perspective.
  • 10. The expressions "even-dimensionality", "odd-dimensionality", and "any-dimensionality" seem to be acceptable either with or without the hyphens, but the hyphenated forms are consistent with "one-dimensionality", "two-dimensionality", "three-dimensionality", and "four-dimensionality".
  • 11. I do not see any difference in meaning between "non-finite" and "infinite", so I am planning to change "non-finite-dimensional(ly,ity)" to "infinite-dimensional(ly,ity)".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional comments.
  • In the course of my recent series of changes from unhyphenated forms to "high-dimensional", I found at least one instance with "very" before "high", and I decided to leave "very" unhyphenated: thus, the adverb "very" modifies the adjective "high-dimensional". However, after reflection, I have decided to incorporate the word "very" in the hyphenation, producing "very-high-dimensional": thus, the adverb "very" modifies the adjective "high", and the adjective phrase "very high" (hyphenated as "very-high") modifies the adjective "dimensional". This is similar to "very high frequency" (shortened to "VHF") modifying "omnidirectional range" in "VHF omnidirectional range", although "frequency" itself is a noun, whereas "dimensional" is an adjective. Also, I have found at least one instance with "extremely" before "high", and I left "extremely" unhyphenated, but I have now decided to incorporate "extremely" in the hyphenation.
  • I have found "high" used immediately before "dimensional stability" and "dimensional accuracy", which are noun phrases with their own meanings: thus, in "high dimensional stability", "high" modifies "dimensional stability", and in "high dimensional accuracy", "high" modifies "dimensional accuracy". The word "high" should not be hyphenated in those expressions.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one of your hyphenization edits on the toric variety page. Your change in that entry and your usage above is not idiomatic usage in the mathematics literature. You should not change pages dealing in terms of art in areas in which you are evidently not an expert (in this case, minimally, someone with a doctorate in mathematics or a student pursuing such a doctorate) on the basis of some notion of grammatical consistency. Articles in mathematics on wikipedia are adequately maintained by people with some degree of expertise in the material. By and large, the terminology used accurately reflects usage in the literature. Your changes detract from that.

More generally, you should be cautious about editing articles on topics like research level mathematics (e.g. toric varieties). The articles are very useful to research mathematicians. Dealing with ill-advised edits from non-experts wastes the time of the people who do great work writing those articles (whether you think they are grammatical or not) and drives some away -- I can point to specific instances of this if you like, but I hope you'll just take my word for it. 96.237.242.122 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert of my image removal

[edit]

My image removal was not unexplained. I stated clearly, rm example image, meaning that I removed File:Example.jpg. I have seen that when some editors use the insert picture gallery button and replace the first example with their image, they forget to remove the second example. --Auric talk 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my reversion (at 19:34, 13 March 2014) of your revision of Wikipedia talk:Language recognition chart, my use of the word "unexplained" referred to the absence of a reason in your edit summary. The image was added at 17:33, 20 October 2012, and removal of it in March 2014 seemed to be an unhelpful revision of a contribution by another editor (WP:TPOC). I now understand your reason for removing the image, and I intend to leave your removal unreverted, if you wish to remove it again.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environmental award winners

[edit]

Category:Environmental award winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indianapolis Prize winners

[edit]

Category:Indianapolis Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goldman Environmental Prize winners

[edit]

Category:Goldman Environmental Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

[edit]

Hi Wavelength, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

[edit]
Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

[edit]
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

(timestamp: 19:16, 4 May 2014)

Thank you for this kudos.—Wavelength (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, List of climate change books

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of climate change books. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of environmental books. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of environmental books – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  SAMI  talk 21:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of climate change books may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • We Need a Green Revolution--And How It Can Renew America]]'' || Various themes: [[clean energy]], [[globalization], and [[population growth]] || [[Thomas L. Friedman]] || 2008

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of climate change books, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency (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) 08:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of environmental books, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Allen (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) 08:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Milton R. Beychok

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Milton R. Beychok requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. --Finngall talk 20:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of response to your notice on my Talk page

[edit]

Wavelength, you notified me (on my Talk page) that you were starting an article about me and I have responded on my Talk page. Best regards, mbeychok (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ecological trap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Water bug
List of fabric names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mousseline

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia core topics

[edit]
Thread retitled from "A little notice".

Information icon Hello, I'm Lightning BOLT!. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Category Wikipedia core topics because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is not a warning, only a reminder that you did something wrong. This message assumes good faith. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from A little notice to Category:Wikipedia core topics, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents. (Here is a link to Category:Wikipedia core topics.)
—Wavelength (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting team

[edit]

Hey Wavelength, thank you for your copyedits to the Signpost this week. I've been bold and added you to the copyediting team listed at our newsroom. I hope that's alright! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is all right, if I am not committed at any time to perform such copyediting.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! You can come and go as you please. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After my username, I inserted the phrase "(sporadic editing)", with this edit summary: adding "(sporadic editing)"—I copyedit Signpost sporadically and partially, and my not correcting a passage is not, in itself, an endorsement of that passage.—User talk:Wavelength/Archive 2#Hyphens - thanks for the ref [18:43, 11 November 2008].
—Wavelength (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion

[edit]
Thread retitled from "The final decision was to keep the article Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion".

I just want to notify you that the decision has been made to keep the article Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion. mbeychok (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from The final decision was to keep the article Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion to Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion, in harmony with MOS:HEAD and WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this notification. The article and the deletion discussion and your talk page have all been continually on my watchlist during the discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am italicizing the heading of this section, in harmony with MOS:HEAD and MOS:ITALICS.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk WP Project Medicine talk page comment

[edit]

Thank you for the link to an interesting and important evaluation of the impact of The Flexner Report. It is very valuable to me to read this. My work as an RN in the ICU provides complex perspectives on the value of both human and scientific aspects of the modern practice of medicine. I hope a nuanced and sophisticated view can be developed on WP. I welcome your efforts to help develop that. It is my sincere wish that should we interact as editors my fiercely presented positions do not impede my ability or yours to achieve a more complex understanding of subjects discussed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. For my convenience (and that of editors watching this page), I am providing here a link to "Flexner Report" and a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#A statement on Alternative medicine and Wikipedia editing (and a link to the version of 18:23, 5 July 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC) and 21:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts in article space

[edit]

Wavelength, I nominated (RPVB), (FP?) and (TVB) for speedy deletion. None of these belong in article space, but wikipedia or template space might be appropriate. However, if you're trying to create intelligent abbreviations for use in edit summaries, this should be done through bugzilla, and not by making hack pages like this. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. I started those pages for use in long automated edit summaries, in response to WP:VPT#Why is the edit summary maximum length so low?! by Dustin. The edit summary example posted at 02:16, 15 July 2014, summarizing the removal of profanity and the restoration of text, used an IPv6 address. (RPVB) means "Reverting possible vandalism by". TVB means "to version by". (FP?) means "False positive?" I considered other namespaces, but I realized that T:RPVB and WP:RPVB might be more difficult to read than (RPVB).
—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[I meant to type "(TVB)" and not "TVB".
—Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)][reply]
I don't think the page, at least in its current state, belongs in mainspace. I wouldn't have any objections to a redirect to a page with information in Wikipedia namespace, though. That's how a lot of the Manual of Style shortcuts work. Dustin (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, they can't be in article space. I think some way where certain abbreviations show a tooltip on mouseover might be a solution, but that would have to be through the developers, who won't do it until it's discussed and approved, of course. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Have you ever seen any of the mainspace redirects prefixed with "MOS:"? Dustin (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(double triple edit conflict) Just a note @Wavelength: in edit summaries, you can pipe links: [[WP:RPVB|(RPVB)]] would display as (RPVB) (I know it's still redlinked).—LucasThoms 03:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lucas, but it was mentioned in that WP:VPT discussion that wikicode characters are counted in the 255-character limit. Therefore, an 18-character shortcut would represent a 31-character expression (including spaces).
—Wavelength (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin, those MOS: pages are only in article space on a technicality, and none would ever seriously be confused with an article. (FP?), on the other hand, suggest a strangely-named music group, (RPVB) a radio station, (TVB) a TV channel. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have I ever mentioned I hate edit conflicts? Yeah, that makes sense. I wasn't sure if that reminder would be helpful, per "...I realized that T:RPVB and WP:RPVB might be more difficult to read than (RPVB)" (emphasis added).—LucasThoms 04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Website JW.ORG

[edit]
See also #Proselytising and #Bias in news media.

I remember User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 140#I will be mostly away for a few days (August 2013)

  • As I am heading with my wife to the hospital in anticipation of the birth of our new baby.

After I read that comment in August 2013, I considered the option of mentioning the article "How to Be a Good Father" (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008729), but I decided not to do so.


Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-02-26/Special report ("Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest", a report about Ihor Kostenko) contains this passage.

  • After the death of Aaron Swartz in January 2013, I wrote a special report for the Signpost that began with a few simple words: "Comforting those grieving after the loss of a loved one is an impossible task. How, then, can an entire community be comforted?" I'm still looking for the answer.

After I read that passage in February 2014, I considered the option of mentioning the brochure "When Someone You Love Dies" (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101994006), but I decided not to do so.


Someone asked about the qualities of Jehovah in the Bible (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 3#How did Yahweh evolve from a war god in a Semitic tribe to a god of love?), and I provided several links near the end of that discussion.


Incidentally, the website JW.ORG (http://www.jw.org/) mentions Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


JW.ORG has these web pages with information about JW.ORG.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


These links are here for my convenience.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This link is here for my convenience.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC) and 01:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better ref

[edit]

Do we have one for this [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found Sunscreen Products as Emerging Pollutants to Coastal Waters (June 5, 2013) by PLOS ONE
and Sunscreens as a source of hydrogen peroxide production in coastal waters. (August 19, 2014) by PubMed.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Citizendium workgroups, Wikipedia WikiProjects, and watchlists

[edit]

Wikipedia:Citizendium workgroups, Wikipedia WikiProjects, and watchlists, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citizendium workgroups, Wikipedia WikiProjects, and watchlists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Citizendium workgroups, Wikipedia WikiProjects, and watchlists during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Wavelength. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 14:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NorthAmerica1000 14:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Halloween answer on Humanities ref. desk

[edit]

I really don't see how your link had any very specific relevance to the original question (in fact, it seemed to be the next thing to spam). Furthermore, since JW's are known for purveying blatant historical nonsense when it comes to Easter, I'm really not sure how credible they are about Halloween. (I wonder if the genius who came up with bizarre garbled "Astarte"/"Ishtar"[sic] pathetic gibberish on http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-easter/ was the same one who came up with the "a god" translation for John 1:1). AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is a link to my reply. The original post contained one question ("Are there neopagans that continue the All Saints' Day/Day of the Dead ritual and include that into Neo-Pagan thought?" [sic]). My reply was "Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about Halloween at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102013325. Point 3 indicates that there are."
—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 14#Development of neopaganisms in a post-Christian environment and ancestor worship.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Environmental issues in film and television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. 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) 09:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

[edit]
Happy Halloween!

Hello Wavelength:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Information about Halloween is indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200272573.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some don't celebrate Halloween. Some Jewish adherents also don't celebrate it: [5]. NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few

[edit]

Hello. Regarding your revisions having the edit summary "(correcting grammar: —> [one of a set] "one of the few that are not ..."—User:Wavelength/About English/Subsets)". An example change is "one of the few that renders" --> "one of the few that render". I believe common usage is that the verb matches the subject of the sentence, which is singular. Compare:

Every one of the birds that sing is white.

Every one of the few birds that sing is white.

The former is on your Subset page, the latter is the type that you changed to use the plural verb. Would you kindly explain how the addition of the word "few" changes the number of the verb?

Thanks, --Cornellier (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article "N with descender" at 19:41, 16 November 2014, and included in my edit summary a link to User:Wavelength/About English/Subsets. In the revised version, the link listed under "External links" is annotated with a sentence fragment: "Currently one of the few that render the letter correctly." A complete sentence is implied: "This font is currently one of the few that render the letter correctly." The word "font" is the subject of the main verb "is", and the noun phrase "This font" is the subject of the main clause "is currently one of the few". The word "few" denotes a small number greater than one. The expression "the few" (meaning "the few fonts") is modified by the relative clause "that render the letter correctly", in which the relative pronoun "that" refers to the plural noun phrase "the few fonts" and is therefore itself plural. The plural pronoun "that" governs the plural verb "render", by means of subject–verb agreement.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC) and 03:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you're rather busy, but would you please answer the question I'm asking above? Ref. the "birds" example above, how does the addition of the word "few" changes the number of the verb? --Cornellier (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these are you asking?
  • How does the addition of the word "few" change_ the number of the verb "sing"?
  • How does the addition of the word "few" change_ the number of the verb "is"?
—Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually never mind. I think I figured it out, thanks. The subject of "sing" is "the few birds" via "that", while the subject of "is" is "one". So when you changed the number of the verb "render" in "currently one of the few that render the letter correctly", it's because the subject of render is fonts, not one. I'm pretty sure the original usage is the more common, though apparently not considered correct.--Cornellier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The relative pronoun "that" is the subject of the verb "render". The word "fonts" is in a different clause.
  • This font is currently one of the few fonts that render it correctly.
This font is a subset of the larger set (the few fonts that render it correctly).
  • There are {few fonts that render N with descender correctly}, and the Quivira font is currently one of them.
  • The Quivira font is currently one of {the few fonts that render N with descender correctly}.
  • (The Quivira font is currently one font that renders N with descender correctly.)
Relative pronoun subjects are discussed at http://www.evolingo.com/en/static/lessons.html?p=90.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theremin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shizuoka. 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) 13:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said

[edit]

Hi Wavelength, please be careful about replacing "That said" with "However". First it is not mentioned AFAICS in the guideline quoted and secondly, the "However" sometimes makes less sense of what is being said - it changes the sense of the translation. I will consider reverting some of these changes where I think the sense has been altered in a way that loses the intended meaning, but happy to discuss further if you like. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. The guideline page at http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm does not discuss every possible situation, but it does discuss some general principles and it gives some examples of incorrect construction along with their corrections.
My search for instances of "that said" as a misplaced modifier began here. Previously, I searched for and corrected instances of "having said that" as a misplaced modifier.
In my revisions, I have been examining the context of each occurrence of "that said" (often capitalized as "That said") or "having said that" (often capitalized as "Having said that") before deciding on whether to revise it and on how to revise it. In some cases, I have changed it to "However"; in some cases, I have changed it to "Therefore"; in some cases, I have changed it to "Furthermore"; there may be cases where it can be changed to "Alternatively". Those adverbs correspond respectively to the conjunctions "but" and "so" and "and" and "or".
In some cases, I have simply removed the misplaced modifier.
In some cases, I have not understood the context well enough to make a decision, and I have left the misplaced modifier uncorrected. In cases where you understand the context better than I have (where I have not revised the text, or where you find that I have incorrectly revised the text), please consider the option of correcting the text to an appropriate expression (such as "However" or "Therefore" or "Furthermore" or "Alternatively").
—Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the phrase "That said" always has to be replaced as you seem to imply. I can find no mention of it either in Fowler or Gower, so it would appear to be perfectly good English unless, of course, it is misemployed. Do you just not like the phrase? --Bermicourt (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "That said" does not always need to be replaced, and I did not imply a universal need for it to be replaced. In some cases, I have simply removed it. I find no evidence that A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by Henry Watson Fowler or its revision by Ernest Gowers discusses every possible error in English usage.
At 14:18, 13 December 2014, you reverted my revision of the article "DRB Class 50", and your edit summary includes "rv edit that changes the sense". However, the expression "That said" not only is a misplaced modifier but also is imprecise in regard to the relationship between the words preceding it and the words following it. After examining the context, I selected the adverb "However" as fitting the context, because the inclusion of 1452 locomotives in the new scheme was in contrast to their being earmarked for withdrawal.
The expression "That said" indicates that someone said something at some time. Who said what when? (What was said? When was it said? Who said it?) Answering the multiple question "Who said what when?" is useful for analyzing the relationship between the words preceding the expression "That said" and the words following it. In my revision of the article "A+E (song)" at 17:45, 12 December 2014, I removed the expression "That said" because, even if refers to the previously quoted expression ("a funky hodgepodge ...") published in 2014, the next quoted expression ("a throwaway ode to UK funky") was published in 2012.
I have tried to explain my reasoning, and I do not wish to spend much more time on it. You may find what is said at "Language Log » That said" to be interesting.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"That said" does not indicate that anyone said anything at any time. It refers to what has been stated in the previous sentence and implies that its import needs qualification. "However", "although" and a host of other words may also be used, but I can't see any grammatical or style reason why any should be preferred over the other. They are all equally vague. And the article is interesting-ish - albeit a little pompous - but in any case one swallow doesn't make a summer. Let's agree to differ and leave articles as they're written. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article "DRB Class 50" (section "General", paragraph 3), the expression "That said" is evidently intended to refer to what was said (stated) by the previous sentence. It was said by Wikipedia (from the time when it was added by you, at 12:57, 21 July 2008, as a "translation" of the German word "Allerdings".)
(Even if someone says "If you understood what was evidently the intended meaning, then there is no problem", still I follow the precautionary principle and say "Even if the probable meaning was correctly understood in this instance, the expression could be misunderstood by another reader or in another context, so avoiding the dangling modifier 'That said' is appropriate.")
The conjunction "although" introduces a subordinate clause, and it requires a main clause (either preceding it or following it) in the same sentence.
Related pages include "Fourth wall" and "Drawing Hands" and "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid".
—Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC) and 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[edit]
100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for this kudos for my lakh (*) of edits.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC) and 19:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Thanks for your contribs to the 'pedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Plastiglomerate

[edit]

Hi! I was wondering if you could take a look at Draft:Plastiglomerate and let me know what you think. Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your message, you had already moved the article to mainspace, so I directly edited it. Thank you for expanding this article about a very important topic.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! The article got approved for DYK! Bananasoldier (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits to racehorse articles

[edit]

Thanks for adding all those hyphens. I expect a fair proportion of the errors were mine. "Three year old" and "four year old" are probably quite common as well. Tigerboy1966  12:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I generally prefer to correct, together successively, errors of the same string of characters, so that I can more easily manage my edit summaries. Misspellings of "two-year-old" can have one or the other or both of the hyphens missing. I seem to have finished correcting misspellings of "two-year-old", and "three-year-old" is next.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tigerboy1966, in making these revisions I have applied one or more of points 3 and 7 and 8 of WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3 (version of 15:42, 16 March 2015), especially point 3:
  • Many compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (adjectives before the nouns they qualify: a light-blue handbag, a 34-year-old woman) or substantively (as a noun: she is a 34-year-old), are usually not hyphenated when used predicatively (descriptive phrase separated from the noun: the handbag was light blue, the woman is 34 years old). Where there would otherwise be a loss of clarity, a hyphen may optionally be used in the predicative form as well (hand-fed turkeys, the turkeys were hand-fed).
Usually, the character string in question is in the context of a complete sentence, and deciding whether and how to revise it is quite straightforward. However, in some articles the character string in question is in an infobox, where the field is titled "Qualification". In the infobox of the article "C S Hayes Stakes", clearly "Three-year-old" is used attributively to modify the noun phrase "colts and geldings" in the longer noun phrase "Three-year-old colts and geldings". However, in the article "Railway Stakes (Australia)", I left unchanged the qualification information (permanent link), because it awkwardly combines what appears to be a compound noun (missing two hyphens) with what appears to be an adjective. It is incorrect in its present form, but I have not decided how best to correct it—"Three years old and older" is one possibility that I have considered. Possibly I will return later to such articles (horse race articles with qualifications in infoboxes), either to revise my revisions or to make revisions to qualification information where I have not made any previously.
I mentioned those things because, although I have been trying to be thorough in my editing, neither perfection nor exhaustiveness is guaranteed. Also, at least one article which I had edited ("Erton Fejzullahu") re-appeared in my search results. I revised the article at 19:10, 16 March 2015 UTC, but my revision was reverted at 21:23, 16 March 2015 UTC.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) and 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vitaly Petrov (coach), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian. 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) 09:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much

[edit]

Thanks for your helpful contributions to the new article I created, Hard Choices (Coward book), much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in news media

[edit]
See also #Website JW.ORG. and #Proselytising.

Earlier this month, I started a new section ("Bias in news media") on the talk page of Jimbo Wales, with a link to a page of http://wol.jw.org. EllenCT responded, and I replied with two additional links to the same website. Next, AndyTheGrump responded with a question, using a piped link. I prepared a reply with one link for each part of the piped link. However, I had already taken the liberty of posting three links to that website, so I was hesitant to post additional links to the same website. Also, I wanted the discussion to stay on the original topic. At the same time, the question seemed to require a reply. Thus, I vacillated ("to post or not to post") and the discussion was archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 185#Bias in news media. Below, I have reproduced the archived discussion and added my reply to the question.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC) and 04:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article can help editors to avoid biased [ˈbīəst] news reports.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) and 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good list, but it's missing anything on groupthink. Bias is in terrible shape, and Media bias could use a look to see if it has everything on that list and groupthink too. EllenCT (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article includes a discussion of the Asch conformity experiments, which studied groupthink.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article includes a discussion of groupthink in relation to macroevolution.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have anything to say about groupthink amongst the followers of a particular religion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but this article discusses unity among followers of a particular religion.
Also, this article includes a discussion of unfulfilled predictions mentioned in your piped link.
They remind me of the Israelites in Egypt, "wandering in confusion".
—Wavelength (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following dialog is an excerpt from the discussion now archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 187#Science and technology quiz.

Camelbinky, your mention of evolution leads me to refer you to this set of questions.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is laughable and I sincerely hope you don't edit on any science based articles and specifically regarding evolution. Such fringe ideas MUST per our policy be only used to describe FRINGE ideas and not presented as scientific fact, you're very lucky this is a talk page, otherwise your use of posting that horrible "source" would have been deleted from an article. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself please, this isn't a church. Churches have walls for a reason.Camelbinky (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have found any factual or logical error(s) in that publication, then please kindly identify it (or them).
—Wavelength (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of Expertise/Interest

[edit]

Hi Wavelength, would you please consider adding some topic headings to your entry at Wikipedia:RD_regulars? I know you post some good refs about language and history, but there are probably lots of other things I haven't even guessed :) I'm hoping to get participation up, so that it can become a useful resource for all of us. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following information, adapted from User:Wavelength#Works on subpages.
  • Some interests: languages (especially: English, Esperanto, French, German, Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Spanish), computers, education, environment, geography, health, Internet, science, society (especially: Bible, economics)
—Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Years old

[edit]

Are you a native speaker? "at the age of 15 years" is not very idiomatic. "when 15 years old" is far better and shorter. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a native speaker of English. My Google search for "at the age of 15 years" reported "[a]bout 9,480,000 results". My Google search for "when 15 years old" reported "[a]bout 24,400 results". The second version is shorter because the subject and verb are omitted. The first version is certainly correct and is clearer.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC) and 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really doesn't read well, and is never used in spoken language, which is a very bad sign. There is no lack of clarity at all in "when 15 years old". Looking at the first page of google hits, most of them are not using the phrase in the way you do, eg "At the age of 15 years, girls scored higher than boys on the parental scale and on the Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI), while boys scored higher ....". You can't usefully use ghits in this way. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Here is a link to some of my recent edits involving the phrase "at the age of 15 years".) I would use it in spoken language, and I am more accustomed to hearing it than your alternative. (Do I need to provide an audio example of someone using it?) The example which you have quoted does use it in the same way that my revisions use it. (It refers to a group of persons instead of an individual person, but that is irrelevant.) Here is a link to some Bible search results, with the age unspecified. Here is a link to some Wikipedia search results, with the age unspecified. (Most of those articles have not been edited by me.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibooks has search results, Wikiquote has search results, Wikiversity has search results, Wikisource has search results, Wikivoyage has search results, Wikinews has search results, Wikispecies has search results, and Wiktionary has search results, in each case search results for "at the age of", with the age unspecified.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(The third sentence of your second message contains a dangling modifier.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Reliable sources

[edit]

Category:Reliable sources, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of shmup articles

[edit]

Hello! You're invited to express your views about this topic on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this invitation.—Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Global agenda

[edit]

Wikipedia:Global agenda, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Global agenda and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Global agenda during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. Wikipedians vary widely in their beliefs and values, with various areas of overlap.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The beliefs and values of Wikipedians are of absolutely no relevance. We should be aware of them but they should not be used to further an agenda that is something other than creating a robust, respected, and reliable encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians vary in their beliefs and values about a "global agenda" and "political advocacy".
A "global agenda" does not necessarily involve "political advocacy". A person can have a "global agenda" (a) to visit every nation, or (b) to correspond with pen pals in every nation, or (c) to collect postage stamps from every nation.
An "advocate" can be a "lawyer". (wikt:advocate#Translations)
—Wavelength (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the MFD and move your proposal to User:Wavelength/Global agenda. I don't agree with your proposal at all but I think you have a right to formulate it into a full proposal before getting beat up over it and it deserves to be treated as a draft of a proposal. If you can't tell, you first need to support your claim that there should be a Wikipedia global agenda before presuming that people agree on that. As such, I'd suggest moving User_talk:Wavelength/Global_agenda#Historical_background_for_starting_this_page and this discussion here to the page itself and starting with arguing that before you get into what the agenda is and how you want the agenda achieved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. Thank you for the userfication. The words "global" and "agenda" and "political" and "advocacy" have been used at Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015.
Nepal earthquake updates are at the following pages.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You probably have a point. I think it's best that you begin by advocating for one rather than arguing that it exists through the usage of words. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years of editing

[edit]

My first registered edit on Wikipedia was at 06:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC), so I passed the 10-year mark between seven and eight hours ago. According to my "preferences", my last edit before these two—at 03:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)—was my 118,010th edit, so I did not attain the symmetry of 120,000 edits in 120 months.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC) and 14:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC) [revised again at 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Apply some thought to the process of creating new pages

[edit]

I came across the Wikipedia:Global agenda page that you created. I would like to add my opinion to that of others in suggesting to you that care must be taken in creating new pages. Pages need to fit in with what WP is all about. We are an educational and information resource for readers. Everything we do must meet these ends. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers 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/List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

When creating new pages make sure that you use references. Stephanie Hallowich, H/W, v. Range Resources Corporation (although you did create it in 2013) had no refs when you created it and now it only has inline refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of GreenFacts for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GreenFacts 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/GreenFacts_(2nd_nomination) 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. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mohammad Yaqoobi

[edit]

The article Mohammad Yaqoobi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

does not meet requirements for notability or sources

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. articles proposed for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for a Palestinian state

[edit]
Thread retitled from "We need your help!".

Hey, would you like to help us with the lead section oft the article : Proposals for a Palestinian state ? Would be very nice. Thank you --Miraclexix (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At 23:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC), I made three changes in one edit to the lead section, and then I made two other edits to the same article.
I am revising the heading of this section from We need your help! to Proposals for a Palestinian state, in harmony with WP:TPOC (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for the professional clean-up! Miraclexix (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this kudos.—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!

[edit]

Greetings!

The flag of Hampshire

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gortin

[edit]

Your recent edit to Gortin added an "f" to the coordinates, which broke them. Can you see why this happened and keep it from happening again? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me. Apparently, I missed the modifier key on my first attempt to find the incorrect character string 19 year old in that article. I hope to avoid a repetition of my mistake in the future.
I have been correcting that character string in many articles, and still many articles need to be checked. After that, the incorrect character strings 19-year old and 19 year-old need to be checked.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God's Kingdom Rules!

[edit]
See also section 4, above.

The 2014 book God's Kingdom Rules! is available online at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/20720. The abbreviation is kr. Versions in other languages are available via http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/li/r1/lp-e.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wavelength/Archive_6&oldid=1203837736"