User talk:DIYeditor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

DIY Editor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DIY Editor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

why did you erase my edition in Evan Rachel Wood

Sasha Leiva66 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sasha Leiva66: - Sorry, there was no summary for your edit. I changed it back when I saw that she had won. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

PASTA

Welcome back, DIY, thanks for the explanation @ Waterloo. Wikipedia brags about how many articles they have. They might, just, shift their focus to quality. Your return is a small step. In the meantime, have some pasta. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tapered: Thank you for the pasta! It's understandable that a lot of new editors are confused by WP:SYNTH and find it frustrating. —DIY Editor (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks

oops, sorry about this. I don't know how I managed to do that, i only meant to fix the link... 2401:A400:6202:6500:990D:A336:4C39:CB17 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay image

Hi DIY editor,

Just replying to your comment re Gordon Ramsay's profile image here. Fair point re image - are you able to authorize replacement with this one instead please?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Ramsay_Chef.jpg

Thanks Neli — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeliMiteva (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@NeliMiteva: Firstly, please sign every post you make to a talk page with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and the time of the post. Secondly, the issue of this photo should be raised on Talk:Gordon Ramsay not my user talk page. Other editors may have input on the photo selection. —DIY Editor (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@NeliMiteva: Also, please create section headings with ==Title== for new conversations on talk pages (or use the "new section" tab at the top). —DIY Editor (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about not including the Goode book in the Sheela na gig article?

It got a good review in the The Midwest Book Review which is not a promo site. It is a reputable library book review organization committed to promoting literacy, library usage, and small press publishing. The book is written by an academic and is extremely well researched. Not all the authors quoted on that page are more expert than Goode. I just can't understand why there is such as issue.--Sue Maberry (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Maberry: You are still writing as if promoting the book. It sounds like back cover text or a review. I'm not sure how else to explain the problem. Wikipedia doesn't include this kind of review in articles. We source particular statements from reliable sources. I would ask what statements you would like to source to the book but I think the consensus on the talk page was that this book is not even a reliable source since it contains a fringe theory regarding the cosmological center of the human imagination. So, not only is it not appropriate to include a review of the book in an article, the book itself is not a reliable anthropological, archeological or architectural source. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico... colony? I just reverted vandalism

Good morning, DIY,

You and I may not agree on the colony issue, but we need to work together on a vandalism problem.

An anonymous user without a Wikipedia account, changed the heading American era to American colony. In spite of the fact that this is clearly controversial, as discussed at length in the Talk section re: colony. I have reverted that edit. (If you catch him doing it again, please revert it.) Unless we get consensus for such a change, it cannot be allowed. If he persists in changing the heading to "colony" I will get an Admin to protect the Puerto Rico page. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Thanks for reverting and being even-handed. I noticed the edit but wasn't sure whether to immediately seek comment from other editors, revert, or try to engage the anon editor. I think reverting was the right answer for the time being. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello DIYeditor,

Thanks for your compliments on my talk page. I noticed you've just started editing Wikipedia in November, at least on this account. Please let me be the first to wish you a warm welcome! I hope you don't mind my adding the boilerplate greeting below.

See you around,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete

Welcome! I would love to get your thoughts on this section, specifically in response to my first post and in relation to this edit. cheers - Subuey (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No opinion. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad. Subuey (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

MDC In general

Were you ever an employee of MDC or were you a Boeing (never MDC) employee?

Why won't you just leave the edits alone. I have made the last one with REFERENCE and you call the LA TIMES a SILLY SOURCE. How demeaning is that. It is a major newspaper. I presume the similar FULL PAGE articles in the NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, St Louis TODAY would all be SILLY as well.

I would not call FULL PAGE articles by all of those newspapers with the same QUOTES TRIVIAL or SILLY.

I truly do not understand.

Is or is not this a COMMUNITY EFFORT or DO YOU OWN THE Wiki articles in question.

Please acquiesce on this!

Haven't needed to use talk until now.

SO now it is just PROMOTIONAL.

YOu can come up with 50 reasons and NONE MAKE ANY SENSE except that you have decided to be a royal pain!

I really hope someone calls your employer(s) TRIVIAL and all your your work TRIVIAL some day. Hope they just call you TRIVIAL and PROMOTIONAL. You apparently, are an editor with no sense! I actually got to talk to and meet some of the 1991 navy pilots and air force pilots. They universally extolled the virtues of MDC aircraft, particularly the F5 Eagle, the F15Strike Eagle and the F/A-18. Both the F-18 and F-15 had enemy shoot downs during the 1991 Gulf conflict

Apparently there are several NAZI editors that are killing all my edits even when I have EXTREMELY PRECISE and NUMEROUS REFERENCES to support the statements. Apparently, every phrase or part of a sentence must have a precise and numerous references and still they kill the edits. Apparently WIKI doesn't give a flaming care about accuracy or completeness, just whomever can revert first! Who can arbitrate this???

This is just frustrating. Mondobyte (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mondobyte: It doesn't matter who was an employee where, personal experience is not relevant here. The article is a silly source, not the newspaper, because it is about marketing. A marketing claim based almost entirely on the achievements of, from what I can tell, the F-15 is not relevant to the F-18 article. I think you can understand why you are encountering some resistance after appeals to the authority of a gift shop mug and personal experience. You seem to be getting the idea about references now. I've left most of your changes in. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Most edits??? What else have you changed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion that should take place on article talk page

"The F/A-18 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,034 knots, 1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,200 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by the 20-mm M61 Vulcan cannon. It is powered by two General Electric F404 turbofan engines, which give the aircraft a high thrust-to-weight ratio. The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions. The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset, though it has been criticized for its lack of range and payload compared to its earlier contemporaries, such as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat in the fighter and strike fighter role, and the Grumman A-6 Intruder and LTV A-7 Corsair II in the attack role." This whole paragraph is fundamentally flawed. Most of these specs apply to the F/A-18A/B/C/D but most do apply to the F/A-18E/F. Not all apply to the A/B nor the C/D which have slightly differing specs. The original F404-GE-402 turbofan of the A/B variants was upgraded to the "F404-GE-402turbofan enhanced performance" engine for C/D which has better performance - higher climb rate, higher max ceiling(Classified), better fuel economy, higher top speed (classified) and better reliability. Through engines wearing out and such, many A/B variants have been retrofitted with the newer engines as the fittings are common. In my opinion, the "F/A-18" should have a very thin base article with references to the A/B/C/D Hornet and the E/F Super Hornet. The current article should more accurately be "F/A-18 Hornet" and only address the A/B/C/D variants. This would remove many of the duality issues and problems that I know of in the current situation. "The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions. The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset," is likely attributable to all variants but the rest is really dicey. The E/F does not use F404 Turbofans - it uses F414 Turbofans. In reality, although the two aircraft share certain heritage concepts, the F/A-18A/B/C/D is an entirely different aircraft from the F/A-E/F. With a few major obvious superficial similarities - two engines, angled rudders the planes are completely different inside and out! Because the E/F is so much larger and heavier, there are literally only a couple components common to both planes and no major assemblies. I would be one to know because I had a significant role in the E/F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mondobyte: Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ (and remember to WP:INDENT your replies with the appropriate number of ":"). If you wish to make major changes to the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet article you should discuss it at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Note that the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet already has its own article and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet already does not contain extensive discussion of it. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A proper place for this quote?

Is there a place in the moor article that would be appropriate for the below? "A moor is a minimalist, melancholy sweep of close-cropped, open terrain" according to National Geographic.
Sendtoanthony (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sendtoanthony: As the article stands I don't think it fits in any section, or the lede. "Minimalist, melancholy" is more descriptive of art than what a moor is factually so personally I don't see that fitting in the lede or being WP:DUE, but if anywhere in the current article I would say the lede. If the article had a more extensive general introduction to the topic perhaps it would belong there but there is none. You may wish to post this to the article talk page for input from others. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Proper name for Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development?

Hi.
Thnaks for creating the article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development. But I think the title of the article can be better with "Timeline of development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II", or "History of development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II"; or something similar to these names. That just my opinion though, kindly let me know what you think. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: This was discussed at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development#Article size beforehand although there wasn't a lot of feedback - basically the one person who replied agreed. My reasoning behind this name was that Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement (and several similarly named articles for individual nations) already existed. WP:THE doesn't offer any guidance but I don't think it is usual to omit the definite article in the middle of a title. "Development of the" turns up a number of articles for example. I would tend to favor "Development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II" because starting with "History of the" makes it pretty long. As far as "Timeline", it's not quite a single timeline because each section overlaps to some degree as far as time period. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

erm... I dont see any discussion on the talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Sorry, I meant Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Article size. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved from here to Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#F-35 article titles. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Westworld Request for Comment

FYI, I have opened a RfC for Westworld since consensus was unable to be reached. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Notifying users

Hi, edits like this notify nobody. Apart from the #s which you fixed in the next edit, the link to the other user's home page and your signature must be added in the same post, and it needs to be a new post, not an amendment. See WP:Echo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for the heads up! Good to know. 23:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

Since you didn't report me do AN/I, have I done so myself. [1] You're not mentioned by alias. Please read it, anyways. Boeing720 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit in Unix page

Hi there. I have reverted the edit where you changed all 'GNU/Linux' to 'Linux' on the Unix article. While most of the people, mostly laymen, use the term Linux, for the OS, fact is, Linux is not an OS. It is just a kernel. GNU/Linux is the proper term for the OSes built on top of Linux kernel. Take a look -> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html Thanks and keep editing :) ! abhilash_kp (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Abhilash Mhaisne: That's according to GNU only and they have obvious reasons for feeling slighted by the labeling of the combination of the Linux kernel and GNU utilities as "Linux" but that doesn't change the fact that essentially everyone does refer to it as "Linux". The FSF can't dictate by decree what the correct way to refer to Linux is. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Abhilash Mhaisne: Also to be clear, you are the one who changed every instance of the status quo of Linux to GNU/Linux. I reverted the edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: That most people refer to the OSes as 'Linux' doesn't change the fact that it is not an OS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should go according to the facts shouldn't we? There is no decree by anyone, but calling it Linux is also not a proper way of referring to it, and if we continue to do the same I feel we are not helping the misconception go away. abhilash_kp (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Abhilash Mhaisne: I notice you are not the original editor who did the mass replace of Linux with GNU/Linux at Unix. I apologize for mistaking that. It is not only "laymen" who refer to Linux as Linux, it is the overwhelming majority of professionals (including Linus himself) and published sources. It's not the place of Wikipedia to try to correct things that should (allegedly) be different. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I (posted properly this time)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Boeing720 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC) But you're still not mentioned by alias. (See it as a polite invitation, please) I'm by the way truly sorry for posting the AN/I wrong. You may copy whatever, but please don't erase my texts. During a far too long time was I not able to post any answers. Note - I'm not blaming you for that. But it seemed like I only could write very short , or there was an edit-conflict preventing my text to be saved. Boeing720 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I had no 'hidden agenda' save to make the title more accurate! Ériugena (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DIYeditor for your kind reply. To the pure all things are pure!Ériugena (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"annual rings" was the words - had nothing to do with "anniversaries"

DIYeditor, I believe you made an honest mistake in the Sweden - Geography - Climate - Vegetation zones part. I could have screamed "own conclusion", "totally wrong", "OR",etc. But I didn't ! As I thought and still think, you just made a simple mistake. And that's fair enough. But this (mainly unnecessary) excuse "my mistake, i was having trouble making out the intent of the sentence or what "anniversaries" meant. let's explain" - but why involve 'anniversaries' at all ? "Annual rings" may be incorrect British English, but I did look it up, and found those words for "årsringar". And cannot possibly be confused with "anniversaries", not by an intelligent person as I think you are. The only reason for my wish to take it up here, is that strange and somewhat accusing excuse. Accusing, since previous editor (= I) never used the word "anniversaries". Simply "my mistake" - or nothing would had been better. And I corrected it without any personal intent. That's all. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Your version was "But they tend to grow too fast (large distances between the tree anniversaries causes poor quality.)" It was difficult to make sense of the intent of that; was it "but", "and" or "because" the large distances between the "tree anniversaries" cause poor quality? The parentheses don't give any indication of the real meaning of the sentence fragment (don't start sentences with "But") and I didn't know what "tree anniversaries" meant - I had to guess what the sentence fragment meant. I could have deleted it entirely for not making sense but I tried to work with you. Since you have trouble expressing yourself in English at times there are two choices - delete or interpret. Doing some searching I found that planting the trees closer together increases board quality (which it seems clear now is because the rings grow closer together) so I did the best I could with nonsense. Maybe deleting is the better option. Also this is the second time you have insisted you didn't use a word you had used. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Something is strange though , Google Translator (still and then) translates Swedish "årsringar" to "annual rings". And that was the tool I used. Nevertheless, and in general, in anyone's quest for perfect English and dry Wikipedia formulations, should the actual context not suffer. And since it's far more easy to find grammar or spelling errors in other's texts (or in one's own some time afterwards), you really should try to make own contributions as well, and see how easy or not that is. Meant as a friendly advice. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Using Google Translate is not a good idea; it is not as accurate as a dictionary, which will explain each usage and meaning of a word. It would be best to combine a good Swedish-English dictionary with a secondary check of an English one. Further you are still doing your grammatical quirk, "should the actual context not suffer" instead of "the actual context should not suffer". This isn't so much of an error at this point as something you are doing willfully wrong. At any rate, it's almost impossible to avoid the intent of your sentences suffering in correction when the English is so bad as to make that intent indecipherable. Like I said it might be easier to just delete any unintelligible sentences but I keep trying to work with you. Repeatedly inserting broken English is verging on vandalism. To be as polite as possible, your edits often amount to damage rather than an improvement. Someone needs to check on that kind of thing. The main reason I edit wikipedia is to proof read others' text so I think I will continue to do so. I don't enjoy having to be confrontational with people and I have tried to patiently explain things to you but you seem quite obstinate and unwilling to accept polite corrections. Your reaction to anything is that you did nothing wrong. Your mistakes are not minor compared to the average editor. You seem to take it as a personal insult when it is just an observation. Meant as friendly advice. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on Google Translate. However can it be of a certain use for rare words. But I'm most certainly not doing anything willfully wrong. That's a stupid accusation. And statements like that just causes confusion, and no other native English editor has never ever before have made complaints like you do. And if you want to be a teacher, you really should use a less mocking tone. It's really hard to understand what you really want. Further, the entire purpose of Wikipedia (according to Jimmy Wales) is to gather the knowledge of the world. (by secondary sources preferably). And there are thousands of subject-predicate errors all over this Wiki, not caused by me. Write some articles yourself, then we could speak again. But for now Good bye. Boeing720 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

For rare (obscure) words that you don't know it is all the more important to find them in a real Swedish-English dictionary instead of Google Translate, and then verify in a real English dictionary, checking the definitions and usages. I really don't want to be in the position of teaching English especially when it takes literally ten times or more to explain something. I am not mocking you and I think I am very patient to repeatedly explain things in detail when it should take just one time, maybe two. All I want is for Wikipedia to maintain a high level of quality which things like broken English and personal opinions interfere with. There are absolutely not major grammatical errors or opinions on what is bad, good or worrisome permeating Wikipedia. Your edits to articles (which are for some reason worse English than your talk page comments) have markedly bad grammar and I have seen several other editors say the same. I don't know why you want to try to dictate what aspect of editing I choose to do on Wikipedia; copy-editing is a perfectly valid role. It may not seem like it but I am earnestly trying to work with you. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Appology (partly at least)

Naturally you are correct about grammar. I do not question that, and never have. But if you just could stick to explaining, everything would be far more easy to see. By accusing me of making willfully errors, it becomes difficult to take what you say to heart. I also feel you have exaggerated (and mocked sometimes). However am I trying to correct the subject/predicate issue. If I may put that label on it ? And I'm far from alone to make such grammar mistakes. But it was indeed wrong of me, to suggest that you must write articles. I was simply angry. But I am sorry for that. Honestly. I recently wrote "if you want to discuss statistics, can we most certainly do so." But thanks to you, did I change it to "if you want to discuss statistics, we most certainly can do so." I'm not expecting any applause fot that. And I might still make some subject/predicate errors in longer sentences (but if so, not intentionally or willfully). I just humbly ask of you to not talk down to me, and I will make fewer and fewer such errors. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way. I left "However am I trying" like that. I'm not certain that's correct, as the subject and predicate are in wrong order. I just assume it's a valid manner of "underlining" that I really AM (trying). Is it still wrong, from this point of view ? Boeing720 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's "However, I am trying" (although some people dislike starting a sentence with "however" like that, which is a separate issue). In English the verb goes after the subject. Two cases where verb can go before the subject that I can think of are in questions such as "Are trees growing?" (emphasis based on context or how spoken) and subjunctive conditionals (not sure of the right term for it) like "The forest would be empty, were no trees growing" or "The forest would be empty, had it no trees." Those could be phrased differently without significant change in meaning: "Trees are growing?" (emphasis still based on context or how spoken) and "The forest would be empty, if no trees were growing." So, put simply, no, you don't phrase a statement in English with the verb before the subject. Hope that helps. I'm no expert in grammar and am not really comfortable trying to instruct in it, as a native speaker I just know when something sounds totally wrong. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I interpret your first reply as my assumption was wrong. And thanks. Earlier would it been better if you had used subject, predicate (and object - direct/indirect if necessary) and other parts of speech without word classes. A verb is in my mind a word class, not a part of speech. This really confused me, the first time you brought it up. I have however later noted that there indeed is a "subject-verb" teaching theory, which I gather is a rather new one. So, either way is fine. Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

How would referring to the predicate have helped explain that you were putting the verb in the wrong place (when splitting the predicate up)? Seems like you are grasping for reasons to explain not understanding something that was quite clear. English is subject-verb-object. No other way to explain that. "Predicate" is not useful in explaining it especially when it has two different meanings, and when of neither could it have been said you were putting it (the predicate) entirely before the subject. It's the location of the verb in particular that is the problem, not the predicate. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I can just say, in my primary and secondary schools (1971-1984, 9+4=13 years), verbs were a word class, and a word class only. The word is the same in Swedish. Verbs were never included in parts of speech during my time in school. I have never ever before encountered verbs as a part of speech. Neither within the subject of grammar in itself nor in English (neither in German nor Spanish). But I have now seen our article and I have seen what you have told me. I have not made any complaints about newer theories. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, verbs are most definitely a part of speech. See here seriously, you need to get a handle on this. Your unwillingness or inability to understand basic rules of English grammar is becoming an issue and if it continues I fail to see how it cannot be regarded as disruption. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

After have had a look at your link, those are what I would like to call "word classes" (nouns, pronouns, adjectives (=describing of nouns and pronouns); verbs, adverbs (=describing of verbs); prepositions; interjections & conjuntions and some add numbers, and/or articles). All Indo-European languages use them. But for instance the Finnish language isn't a such language, and lacks for instance prepositions. Nevertheless I have understood DIYeditor. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Further acknowledges

DIYeditor, I have come to the conclusion that you honestly are a Wikipedia contributor of special value, if I may say so. You once wondered if the grammar differed between my native language and English regarding - what I would like to call "subject/predicate matters". My answer (which I ought to have given you already at that time) is, there is no essential difference when it comes to matters like "how to formulate a question". This is also the same regarding all brief statements. But in some longer phrases or sentences, there is both a certain possibility so to speak, to "shift" a verb's position relative to the subject (using your "teaching"), and in some cases this isn't a possibility, but a must. One single example of a such "must": "När soldaten kom in, blev jag rädd" - a normal translation "When the soldier came in, I was scared", whilst a word by word translation is "When the soldier came in, was I scared". So your question was indeed valid. And I feel I must thank you for all the remarks you have done. Thanks ! Further, I hope that you can appreciate that I never have made grammatical errors willfully. And the fact that no other Wikipedia editor have made any such complaints ever before (with exception of some obvious "open mocking" of my very first longer comments at talk-pages, but I soon learned from that). I have also, and at the time "at once" corrected for instance "aswell -> as well" and "a player that..." -> "a player who..." in my mind. Solely due to my own observations
Someone once told me "life is like an everlasting school". But this was said by a teacher (later in life, he was not my teacher). And I didn't give that statement much thought until some years later. But I guess that was a pretty fair explanatoin of life. Please accept my apologies. I really should have taken your remarks more seriously from "scratch". I cannot give a 100% guarantee for never ever in the future make grammatical mistakes. I realise I'm not a new Shakespeare. But I think I'm able to write decent enough English, including "the subject/predicate issue". Which indeed is in my mind, now finally. And although I'm 53, I'm still capable of learning. Apart from the already mentioned matter, now corrected in my mind, and "single accidental ones", are there any other sever grammatical errors in my written English, that you have observed ? If so, I would very much appreciate if you could share them with me now. Please keep in mind that I didn't really take you seriously enough from "scratch", as I have tried to explain earlier.
And may I return to you when I encounter grammatical difficulties in the future ? (I'm certain you will continue to keep an eye on me, and you're welcome) Boeing720 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Attitude

The merits of edits can be discussed, and edits can be made in a civil fashion. However, your associated edit summary [2] was pompous and belittling: this was unjustified, offensive and bordering on aggressive. Wikipedia is supposed to be good natured, and so please consider your attitude to others and how you communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.188 (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@45.116.182.188: It was in response to a series of fairly aggressive IP edits all but one of which having no edit summary. The one that did have an edit summary was to edit war over a prior reversion by another editor regarding whether "percentage" was correct in British English and the edit introduced a grammatical error (went from "based on shared percentages" to "based on shared a per cent") - if you are going to get into revert wars with people it would at least pay not to make things worse. The other error of spelling "a while" as in "once in awhile" only added to the pattern. Further these edits are apparently from India which only adds to the perception of a common problem - possibly (or sometimes obviously) non-native English speakers systematically trying to correct English grammar and failing. Without an established identity (a username, etc.) it is difficult to separate out the constructive editors from those who are apparently fitting patterns like this. There are a great many bad IP editors to deal with and it is not really possible to have maximal patience and invest maximal time in communicating with and trying to watch over each one. So I politely asked ("please consider not" rather than "do not") you to consider stopping this behavio(u)r. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD vote

Hey! Just curious why you changed your mind on your comments at the AFD for Jacob Truedson Demitz? I thought your !vote was quite well thought out so I was sad to see you delete it. No pressure to restore it or anything, just saying I thought it was a solid contribution to the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thank you. A couple of reasons, for one I felt I didn't really have the time or ability to investigate the sources well enough so it was possible that I had missed something. Also it seemed like one "weak keep" didn't really offer much of a useful opinion - felt it was indecisive. Since you felt it was useful I will restore it. Thanks again for your input.—DIYeditor (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar help if possible

Sorry if I'm disturbing. From Grisjakten (a Swedish film) Quote: "So why should anyone make complaints of a decision made by the government and the by the people elected parliament ?" Is the question correct ? Especially the underlined part ? If possible. Boeing720 (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The problem is whether this is a direct quote. If not, in normal English I would say that the word "people" is redundant, as well as the the word "the" between "and" and "by", which is not present on the linked page. (I assume the underlining is just to highlight what you're not sure about.) However, if this is a direct quote from the movie, then possibly there is a transcription error and it should read "by the people's elected parliament", otherwise I would expect it to read something like "...government and the (by the people) elected parliament" or "...government and the, by the people, elected parliament". It depends on whether "by the people" should be parsed together as a unit - quite possibly to someone familiar with the expression as it used in the USA - or whether the words should be parsed separately. However, if parsing the words together then the extra definite article is required and some way of indicating that "by the people" is a single unit. In spoken English, this would be done by emphasising the phrase slightly or providing a slight pause before and after the phrase. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Kind of fixable by hyphenating "people-elected". "Complaints of a decision" isn't really idiomatic in English, either. "Complaint of" generally used in reference to a condition or action one is subject to, not to external events ("he complained of back pain", "her complaint of sexual harassment"). It's not clear if this is means to represent some Wikipedian's translation of Swedish text, direct transcription of supplied subtitles in English, or overdubbed English audio, in the Swedish film. In the first or third case, just insert the hyphen; in the second, use [-]. In any of them, could also use ['s].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The bulleting thing

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I was attempting to provide more of a mini-tutorial, on the talk page of someone who seems to have some issues with properly absorbing WP editing norms, and difficulty accepting constructive criticism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've been a bit perplexed by that individual myself. This edit changing a !vote by replacing and not striking the original text (not to mention becoming a bit rude in the reply below), and this edit restoring the section heading "App store" (and "main" link) to something that is clearly not about an app store. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, lots of us do things like this. I've been doing it for almost 12 years, but only when no one has responded to my !vote (either criticizing its wording or doing a "per SMcCandlish"). But, yeah, the second edit you point out doesn't make much sense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: It was after I had responded to his !vote, just not right there. His response below in the same edit was to a "Note to closer" which I had made about "Support" !votes of which his was one. So it became hard to make out exactly which support votes I was talking about as both of users in question changed theirs to "Move" without striking it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I would think "she", given that Lisa is a woman's name, but who knows on teh Interwebs. Heh. Anyway, I see what you mean and agree that the change was inappropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Oh I assumed it was just a reference to the Apple Lisa. Never know, don't want to assume anyone's gender. That's why I put up a userbox with mine, to spare people the trouble of using "they/their/them" or "his/her" etc. (hope the pings aren't annoying, I noticed you did it on CL's talk page and thought it common courtesy) —DIYeditor (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Pings are good. I hadn't thought of the Apple Lisa (in a lo-o-ong time). You're right about assumptions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor thing

Re: this (the problem you identify, not your reaction to it), I find it helps to preview and consider how long a monolithic block I'm posting and then start trimming and compressing (which I'm not very good at in talk posts, though skilled at with encyclopedic and policy text), and – much more easily – putting in paragraph breaks so the material's more easily digestible. Even I had a hard time getting through a text-wall that dense, but it would have been easy if snipped into bite-size pieces, either as a series of short paragraphs or of long-ish list items. (All that said, I'm still criticized for not paragraph-breaking frequently enough, so I guess take this advice and multiply it × 2. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I thought I might have gone on too long, that's why I tried to condense it into the tq portion so the basic idea would stand out clearly. Normally I do look for paragraph breaks and opportunities to streamline text and looking at it now I see that the response to FC's claims re: nativism and such could've been broken out into its own paragraph rather than framing both sides of the discussion of the definite article. I went back and made some paragraph breaks without altering any text, and made a note of the change with a new timestamp. I hope that is acceptable by WP:REDACT. Thanks for your feedback. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I've been doing that kind of self-refactor for about 12 years here, including often revising wording, too; I only bother with the strike and insert markup if someone has already responded in some way to the material I want to copyedit. I can't remember anyone ever venting at me about it (they only when I silently change by mistake something someone did actually respond to, and it made their pre-revision reply not make sense; I'm careful about that, and will go back and fix it with <del>...</del> and <ins>...</ins> if that happens). It's eminently better to improve one's post than to leave it in a poor state, especially if it's recent and people haven't mulled it over much yet. PS: I also put {{Thread mode}} on my userpage, on the off-chance someone wants to get pissy about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Huns

You have removed information from the article Huns which is supported from reliable sources.[3] Why ?--2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25: Insufficient support for "most ancient texts". Please take it up on the article talk page so more people can have input. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) IPv6 user, you were reverted by MMFA and then you re-reverted instead of taking it to the talk page. DIYeditor has merely reverted you again so that you can follow BRD: the onus is on you to take it to the talk page, not edit war to re-insert your contested edit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

First, this information is available on the talk page of the article for months.[4] Second - let's not pretend that we don't know what is going on here on WP - discussions with editors like MMFA are useless and waste of time because of their personal affinities. And to be straightforward - such editors are a huge obstacle toward improving articles like the article "Huns" and many other articles. I would love to discuss these changes on the article with independent editors, probably DIYeditor or Nick Thorne, but talking with MMFA would be a huge drain on my time without any result. From my point of view deletion of this information from the article is a pure form of vandalism, to put it mildly. --2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25: Sorry, you'll have to take it up at the article talk page or seek a remedy described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Barnstars have become rather old fashioned on Wikipedia but I think you've earned one for the hard work you've done on Intel Management Engine. Good job! Jason Quinn (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DIYeditor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Common law

DIYeditor --

Did you check Chicago Manual of Style, Wikipedia MOS (or anything else) before your edits to common law? Some of the principles you advance aren't in any style manual I found, US or UK (I looked at only wikipedia MOS, CMOS, and a few random things that popped out of Google on specific issues, and on only a few issues -- I didn't go on any kind of exhaustive search). On at least the issues I looked for, the text before your edit was in conformance with the manuals I looked at.

Even under the MOS:LQ "part of the quote" rule, the period IS in the underlying source. So your edit was -- too hasty.

Your cite to MOS:ENGVAR has an important qualifier -- "if no clear style for the article has been established." The article is in standard U.S. usage, with occasional deviations from recent UK editors -- why does that qualifier not apply? And what about "North American usage is typically to end all abbreviations with a period?" What about other advice in MOS:US "avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK"

This isn't one of the things that's worth any kind of argument, and wouldn't matter in a edit of first instance -- but if you're gonna revert, I would think it would be a good idea to make sure you're standing on solid ground first? And in edits for form (rather than for content), if you detect a few U.K.-isms in an article that's otherwise consistent in North American usage, conform the few, rather than further randomize?

Thanks

DCLawwyer (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@DCLawwyer: Hi, thanks for getting back to me. When replying to user talk page comments it's best to keep the conversation on the page it started and ping the editor being replied to as I've done here. Also it is safe to assume that someone who posts to your talk page will "watch" it for replies even if you forget to ping them. Sorry, you are right that the Chicago Manual of Style does still support the established American style of quotations. "The period IS in the underlying source": There is not one period in question, rather quite a number of locations where you put punctuation inside quotes. By MOS:ENGVAR I don't think the article can be said to clearly adhere to American usage and I don't think it would be appropriate for us to force an article to conform to such when it is not about a topic primarily of interest to Americans or associated with the US, but perhaps this is a discussion that needs to take place if there is some question. I think MOS:US (and apparently the CMS) is pretty clear that "US" is preferred and by extension "UK" so changing to "U.S." when (if) that usage has not clearly been established in the article is not appropriate. As you say, really not worth arguing over; I think the main point is to stick to Wikipedia's British-style quotation-punctuation rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !

Merry Christmas, DIYeditor

Boeing720 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Thanks, to you as well.

My edits

Sorry for the english, i translate from wikipedia in spanish or wikipedia in french (i know both languages) using google traductor then I change it as best I can (i also have a good level of english), and that is the result--ILoveCaracas (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Gråen - three new photos.

It works with your "stack-syntax", but is it optimal ? Perhap you know of a better way still, for four images ? (As long as the longest map stays put, to the far right, I can live with it. If you got somewhat interested, I have also added two other shots at Landskrona, Harbour section, parts of Gråen can be seen in them as well. )Boeing720 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I've taken up discussion of this at Talk:Gråen#Stacking images. I think it is better to discuss things specific to certain articles on their page and notify the other editor(s) with the {{u}} or {{ping}} templates. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course, sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for user page

Hi, I agree that my user page was promotional. But please, I am new here. I didn't know the rules. Now how can I make my user page again? :'( I will not mention my personal info again, I promise. Just there will be a short description, contribution to Wiki and social links. Isn't that OK? AhmedLutfeInam 10:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Improvements?

Excellent suggestions, for which many thanks. Hoping this turns into a proposal which I can then support. KJP1 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thanks, looks like Jytdog has incorporated them into the current working version. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

AMD Platform Security Processor

Hi, DIYeditor. I recently created the AMD Platform Security Processor article, which is the AMD analog to Intel Management Engine to which you heavily contributed. If you also have expertise on that topic, you are warmly invited to help develop this new article further. Unfortunately, hardware design is not an area where I am very knowledgeable. It's strange however that both these important topics were "invisible" because they had been redirects until I separated them out into bonafide articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Thanks for the heads up. Looks good for a start, I don't have anything to add at this point. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

SVG-formate

Hello DIYeditor ! I can now see the benefits with the SVG-formate. Is a special software requiered , or how do I do ? Using Paint doesn't work. By the way - and this is extremely awkward, I think. I had trobles with my desktop and used a laptop instead. The laptop has a Vista restoring partition hidden, but I did once install XP Pro SP3 on it, obviously. On THAT laptop (also using Mozilla Firefox and Google as search engine), I can see a possibility to choose location map ! At the very least I guess we can write off the OS as the trouble. I really accept the standard (?) preferences in the Wikipedia settings. Are you well enlightened in such matters as well ? But my main issue is about how to make SVG files, if possible ? Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Inkscape is a free program to edit SVGs. You can find tutorials for how to use it. As far as what settings might be causing the multiple-map display not to work, I was told it might be related to disabling Javascript (Javascript must be enabled in your web browser). And I think I mentioned both Inkscape and Javascript twice already on the article talk page. :) Hope that helps. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

First - Thanks for the hint on Inkscape ! Then, about the maps, I don't rule out JavaScript at all, but I think that is disabled also on the laptop. I will investigate that matter. But with Javascript enabled, many unnecessary troubles can affect a PC. So I guess I have to live with that long map instead. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:I've now installed Inkscape - and it seems to be really usable. But this software sadly lacks simple programming functions for math curves, like sine waves. I had hoped for this possibility too. Do you happen to know any such SVG-sogtware as well ? But for maps and many (really many) other tasks, Inkscape seems very good. There is something called GNUPLOT, but that (free) software is just for 64-bits OS, as it seems. Only if possible and easy. Anyway, thanks for Inkscape Boeing720 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of software is going to be oriented toward 64-bit these days. You can check out Commons:Help:SVG for math. Also, LibreOffice is good for making graphs and probably presentation-style SVGs. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ! I guess you are right, but there really is no connection between picture quality and 32/64 bit-OS. :)

(talking about the future, the Quantum Computers , are no longer SciFi, whatever that will mean. Just four years ago, there were still those who said "it will never work" (or similar). But last year, Canadian D-wave released the first commercial one of the kind - and I had a look in my wallet...:) ). Boeing720 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

English grammar question (if possible)

Hello! I have a fairly easy, but to me suddenly confusing, question. Let's take some simple examples, as I guess that's the easiest way for us both.
Basically it's about tenses of the verb "to have" - "have/has" - "had" - "had" (just like go/goes - went - gone ; do/does - did - done ; speak/speaks - spoke - spoken ; eat/eats - ate - eaten), if you can see the pattern I trying to explain ? Then to the examples - is any of thrm wrong grammar ?

1. "I have it"
2. "I am having it" / "I'm having it"
3. "I had it"
4. "I have had it" / "I've had it"
5. "I had had it"
6. "She has it"
7. "She is having it" / "She's having it"
8. "She had it"
9. "She has had it" / "She's had it"
10. "She had had it"

It's of course number 5 and 10 which I wonder (most) about, if they sound wrong. Can "had had" exist? Sorry to disturb. Boeing720 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I think "had had it" is correct, I'm not positive though. It's something I would say personally. "At that point, she had had the car for quite some time." Assuming a literal "had it" and not the expression "had it" as in to be tired of something, for which you would colloquially say "She had 'had it' at that point, and wouldn't take any more." —DIYeditor (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess other ways of formulation is to prefer such statements. But your reply solved an internal "mind-problem". Thanks for your efforts and time !17:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I don't think there is another way to formulate it and still be in that tense. A question for a grammar book. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No no - not in the same tense of course not. Without having thought it thoroughly through, I do though suppose there may be ways to change the general tense of a sentence or two, without changing the meaning of it all. But again, not fully thought through. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Sorry to disturb again, but I wrote this (as of a good source about Lenin) "What exists in writing before the age of 23 is only twenty documents..." As I read it again I suddenly thought I had done a severe is/are grammatical error. But "What exists in writing before the age of 23" is "third person singular", isn't it ? - and grammatically not about "twenty documents" (Some three sentences I added was removed for poor reasons, in my opinion) - but I'm only interested in the grammar here. Obviously I sometimes get confused. Boeing720 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: You don't need to ping me on my talk page, I get notified when you post here. I would phrase that sentence differently for one thing - "only twenty documents exist from before the age of 23" or "only twenty samples of his writing from before the age of 23 exist" or something like that. But as to the grammar question on a plural "what", I think that yes you would probably want to make the parts of the sentence agree with whether it is plural or not, so it might be "what exist are twenty books" although I don't think it would be uncommon to say "what exists is twenty books" instead. Not sure either way. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

About the ping, the reason was I didn't create a new headline, or for no good reason. I'm sorry, thanks for letting me know. Thanks for your detailed reply. In any case, it must be either "what exist are" (plural what) or "what exists is" (singular what). About the phrasing, I followed a source in Swedish. Which sometimes can be limiting. In general , it's better to first read the part through and then think about the translation. I didn't at that occasion. This became even more obvious to me, after having read your phrasing(s). Inspiring ! Thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Frisian languages

Comparative sentence

• Saterland Frisian: Die Wänt strookede dät Wucht uum ju Keeuwe un oapede hier ap do Sooken.
• North Frisian (Mooring dialect): Di dreng aide dåt foomen am dåt kan än mäket har aw da siike.
• West Frisian: De jonge streake it famke om it kin en tute har op 'e wangen.
• Gronings: t Jong fleerde t wicht om kinne tou en smokte heur op wange.
• East Frisian Low Saxon: De Fent/Jung straktde dat Wicht um't Kinn to un tuutjede hör up de Wangen.
• Dutch: De jongen aaide/streek het meisje langs haar/de kin en kuste/zoende haar op de wangen.
• German: Der Junge streichelte das Mädchen ums Kinn und küsste es auf die Wange.
• English: The boy stroked the girl around the chin and kissed her on the cheeks.
• Danish: Drengen strøg/aede pigen på hagen og kyssede hende på kinden. ArchitectMan (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@ArchitectMan: That's not a source, and please take this to the article talk page and continue the discussion that was occurring there. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Warning me for edit warring when another user has already violated 3RR

How am I 'heading for 3RR,' when an editor has already reverted three of my edits? How is he not being warned for 3RR? This relates to the kratom page.2601:80:C201:1910:1C5C:7801:CBA1:F73 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@2601:80:C201:1910:1C5C:7801:CBA1:F73: Report it then if you think so. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not modify other editors' talk page comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 32.218.44.111 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@32.218.44.111: You just got done modifying someone else's comment [5] and now you are going to complain about it? Don't use "big" like that, there is no reason and it is distracting. It makes the page hard to read and that is a reason to modify someone's comment. Apparently the only change to the proposal was the substitution of a source; the text is the same. Some kind of behavioral/emotional/cognitive issue seems to be at play. DO NOT MODIFY OTHERS'S COMMENTS in all caps after you just did it yourself. BIG text. Seriously? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't modify another editor's comment as you did; I restored Jzsj's comment, which he changed after other editors had already responded to the original. Jzsj had already been warned several times about that tactic (e.g., 1, 2, 3). 32.218.44.111 (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Installed "TDM-GCC-32" but

Sorry to disturb. But I did install this at my connected PC. But when compiling, the gcc want's to open an object file (with changing and strange name) in the TEMP-directory like "ccDGgKuk.o". I've checked the path. The bin-directory is included. May I ask, is there any setting file - or do you have any other hint ? (This version was supposed to "get the Linux feeling on Windows" and I get the general idea that far.) The entire tree looks "normal". "help" just gives the CMD-help, "gcc /help" or "gcc help" doesn't work at all. The download and other GNU pages gives no help either. I know this isn't your work, but if you can PLEASE help me on this. It is an honest question, and I have really tried. Boeing720 (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: GNU utils give help for "--help" (and have arguments starting with "-" or "--") but the built in help is not where I would go looking for how to use things except as a quick reference (if even then). I don't know why that is happening but I get the feeling you did not follow all the instructions for installing, or are doing something peculiar when running it. I might suggest instead Cygwin which is more frequently updated and better supported than TDM-GCC. There is also MinGW-w64 which also needs MSys2 but I think the installation instructions/steps for that are going to be too complex - I would try Cygwin. To be honest I would suggest ditching Windows XP entirely, formatting your disk, and installing Linux (Ubuntu is good for beginners, maybe Debian) instead because it's not safe to run Windows XP online and you would get an operating system with updates. That would also take care of any configuration issues, but you are going to have to learn how to read online instructions and how to use Google to get answers. Yes it is possible to run MS Flight Sim 2004 on Linux but it's not perfect. Again, use Google for answers. If nothing else just ask Google your question in plain English. Also, you will probably want to look into a good free IDE (integrated development environment, like Eclipse, CodeLite, Code::Blocks) for Windows or Linux - or at least a good programming text editor with syntax highlighting. Lastly you do not need to activate Windows 10 to use it and there is the Community edition of MS Visual Studio for free for it. Not sure what your disk space/hardware limitations are. Really I can't be there to hold your hand through this sort of thing and you should make use of online forums, help pages, etc. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I did notice the lack of IDE and other things. (But as long as there was a ";" error - it seemed to work. Then this non-existing object file was asked for. I used "gcc filenam.c -O1 and other -Optimizings. But not with two "--". I will try to examine this further, quite possibly Linux too. But right now I'm about to move (physically). I will return in 2 weeks or so. Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)