User talk:Wereon/Archive 1
Welcome edit
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 21:06, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Commonwealth English edit
Apologies, I wasn't aware until the day after where I did check the Oxford dictionary about the ize-ise issue. It just seems weird that the majority of Brits spell ise and yet our dictionaries take another form! Again, sorry. --JDnCoke 00:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Your edit to gigabyte edit
Why did you remove the word billion?? Can it be mis-interpreted?? If so, how?? 66.245.124.160 14:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Billion can be interpreted is different ways depending on the US and European (though this is used less nowadays) style --Pluke 22:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
– edit
Please stop putting – in articles - it makes it harder to edit (7 characters vs one). Our developers are working on a wiki way to represent dashes (such as putting two hyphens together like this, -- that are then rendered as – ). --mav 01:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Quoting style edit
Wereon, you made some changes to several articles marked as "quoting sytle." You moved all the quotes after periods and commas in sentences to before them. Example, you changed "aroused," to aroused", . Though commmon today, it is technically incorrect. When a quote ends a sentence, the quote marks should come after the ending mark, not before. If there is a Wikipedia Style Guide page that refutes this, I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, we should keep the quote marks outside ending sentence marks except in special circumstances. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Oops! I got this link from Conti. The Wikipedia manual of style advises wikipedians to use the British quotation style. Though I think it is wrong, I'm going to abide by it. Sorry for the trouble... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:44, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
"American" spelling edit
Regarding your spelling change in Brisbane: WP policy is to use the spelling variant most appropriate to the article, so there's no need to Americanise spelling in any articles about Australia or Britain (or just about any English-speaking country other than the USA, I suppose ...) Thanks! — Danc 14:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You may wish to consult a dictionary. "Licence" is a noun, and "license" is a verb. Of course, in the USA, they use "license" regardless. —Wereon 18:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- *thoroughly shamed* You're right, of course. Please accept my humble apologies. I'm sure there's a lesson in this for me (like hypercorrection is bad, or that I should care a little less about the whole American vs everyone-else's spelling issue ...) — Danc 00:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
More on spelling edit
Hi Wereon, It's not worth reverting, but be aware that "esthetic" is authorized by standard dictionaries, and some authors prefer it because it seems less pretentious. Cheers, Opus33 15:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
External link edit
If there is only one external link the heading should not be called external links. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:05, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
- No, it's Wikipedia policy to use "==External links==" for all headers. You might want to search the recent changes – there's a user who has taken it upon himself to correct all the "External link" headers. You might want to search for him (I can't remember his name), as he has a good argument for this on his Talk pages. I just decided to save him a job as I was correcting the URL of the link. —Wereon 16:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Found it: User:Lady_Lysine_Ikinsile/extlinks. However, it seem to be owned by a different user now, and as such may have changed. The ethos remains however – the header title should be consistent. I have come across a few titles of "External link" with two or more links, where someone has forgotten to change the header.
Quotation marks edit
Neutrality has just changed the Manual of Style to indicate there is not a rigid rule about placing of commas within or outside of quotation marks. I have reverted his changes. Neutrality was discussing such a change on the manual talk page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#On quotations and punctuation marks and received no support. I have reverted his changes.
I noticed your suggestion to Neturality at User talk:Neutrality that he not change the position of the comma in the featured article but should follow the Manual of Style and so thought you might wish to be told of this.
Jallan 02:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Your comments are offensive. edit
I don't care what the MoS says at the moment, because nobody ever voted on the MoS and it is non-binding. The fact is that this is not just a British encyclopedia, and arbitrarily changing grammar on a massive scale is rude. Also, I'd like to note that the MoS is not yours alone, and that it belongs to the community. If I wish to change the arbitrary restrictive rule about "quoting style" to note that either style is acceptable, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. (Changing it to an American English-style only rule, however, would be unacceptable.) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with American vs. British differences. Both styles are acceptable in both countries. However, with regards to Wikipedia, I see it this way: if you have all the articles in the "logical" quoting style, it is trivial to change them all to the "conventional" style using a script, as information is being thrown away. However, the reverse is not true – human intervention is required to see whether or not a comma or full stop really belongs before a quotation mark. Frankly, I don't care what you think your "rights" are – the fact of the matter is that the community (namely, the people on the MoS talk page who reverted your change) do not aggree with you. The MoS is not yours alone, either. Wereon 15:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Re:Margin of error blurb edit
Thanks, Wereon, for your edits. I think I'd rather keep "percent" instead of "per cent", though. It is a valid spelling, and it is more commonly spelled this way in the statistical literature. It also matches more aesthetically with percentage, percentile, etc. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, of course, and thanks again for taking a look. Best, Andrew (Fadethree) 19:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you! edit
Hi, Wereon, lately I've been meaning to fix the quoting style in John Vanbrugh, but I keep getting diverted into tinkering with the phrasing instead. Thank you very much for taking care of it and making it nice and consistent, it is much appreciated!--Bishonen 23:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing edit
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
Logical Location edit
Hi, Wereon.
To clarify my Tony Blair edit summary: I rv'd your:
- "Edinburgh, Scotland" => "Edinburgh in Scotland"
edits because:
- "Edinburgh, Scotland" is much more common than "Edinburgh in Scotland" [1]
- "Foo, Bar" is much more common than "Foo in Bar" e.g. [2] [3]
I agree with you on logical quoting though :-)
chocolateboy 08:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Edit summary edit
Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 01:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
templates edit
Heya, templates don't need the msg: prefix anymore, so you can just type {{stub}} instead of {{msg:stub}}. --fvw* 17:10, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks.
Numbers edit
Why are you changing "#" to "number" in the Star Trek episodes? Cyberia23 21:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Admin nomination edit
Wereon - I'd like to nominate you as an admin - is that something you'd want? →Raul654 19:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, yes please! I'd like that very much. —Wereon 19:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
An award edit
Although it looks like your request for adminship is doomed, perhaps this will be of some recompense. You have made many fine edits upholding proper and correct English spelling and grammar, which most people unfortunately do not practise. That is something of which Wikipedia could use a lot more. Don't let the opposition get you down. Long live British English. Keep up the good work. And don't forget the Oxford comma! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! —Wereon 15:36, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
BC vs BCE edit
Hello, Wereon.
I personally have no preference either way. I changed it because I know someone else will probably do it anyway ..... (e.g. [4].)
-- PFHLai 01:09, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
- Good to know .... Notice that the 'E' is absent in today's 'Selected Anniversaries' ? :-) -- PFHLai 17:57, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin edit
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. Since you've been previously nominated I added an '*' immediately before your name in this list. If for any reason you're NOT interested, my apologies and please remove the '*' (you could entirely remove yourself from the list also, if you'd like). I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
DYK edit
Thanks for pointing out those mistakes, they're fixed now :) --nixie 11:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:BBC Television - Blue Peter Theme.ogg has been orphaned and can be deleted as Orphan Fair Use. I don't know if this was intentional or inadvertant but thought you might want to take corrective action if you want to keep the file -Nv8200p talk 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
PNG -> SVG edit
Thank-you for converting it to svg. (I really need to learn SVG or spend some more time with inkscape, sometime in the future) Bawolff 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
BC/AD - BCE/CE edit
Why is the changing of BC/AD to BCE/CE so politically ludicrous? It is a dating abbreviation that is used by a vast majority of historians today, and even if someone was not entirely sure of the abbreviation than Wikipedia does have an article for its explanation. Christianity should not have a monopoly on the dating of history; history is shared by every religious and non-religious group around the world. Does it offend you? Dorro 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Offend me? Not for any religious reason. While the idea of a secular dating system may be useful, it is useless if it has the EXACT SAME EPOCH. It is nothing more than AD/BC rebranded. One would not dream of renaming Christmas; if a secular winter holiday is needed, a separate one should be started. — Wereon 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I must agree in principal to what Dorro says. There seems no logical reason for you to oppose BCE/CE edits other than to justify your own tastes. If you want to promote BC/AD and create your articles in that style, fine, but I don't see what drives you to revert other people's edits. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Wereon, if the dates are the same, why would there need to be a new system? I think the premise for BCE and CE is very weird because in the article on Wikipedia it says it is the shortening of "of our common era," now who has ever said that? "Common" doesn't even make sense; was it "uncommon" in BC?--Padishar 04:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Crooks tube edit
There is an error in the diagram ass this shows a hot cathode, which I put in before realizing the details of the device. I will soon redraw this. Would it be easier to vectorize from a PDF or fromt the origininal Appleworks drawing? Thanks, Leonard G. 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Removal of England from articles about places in England edit
I notice you are removing the explicit statement that places are in England from article introductions. Wikipedia caters for all English speakers across the world. You should not assume all readers are conversant with English geography. We must aim to cater for all levels of knowledge without making assumptions. The Wikipedia naming convention which allows the omission of England applies to the naming of article titles and not to the content of articles themselves. Lumos3 17:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm only changing "London, England" to "London". It's very jarring to English ears, as I'm sure you know, and I wouldn't change "Boston, Massachusetts" to "Boston, Massachusetts, USA", for example. I think we can safely assume that all of our readers know that London is in England! (If not, I'm sure they'd be more at home at the Simple English Wikipedia.) —Wereon 11:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Shive edit
Hi. You recently added "Elliot" to Dan's article as his middle name. Can you give a source? I've been unable to find one and would be interested in seeing where it came from. --Kizor 23:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Thanks! I'd missed that. --Kizor 18:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Brain Burp edit
Haha I wouldn't exactly call it a brain burp but if you check my profile you can read that I'm not the best with grammer. I was trying my best and to be bold but sometimes I guess I'm not always right. If it really is It's go ahead and change it back. SirGrant 02:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Not Weird but Necessary edit
The reason that BC/BCE is preferable to BC/AD for general dating tastes is that BC/AD is a religious dating method. AD means "the year of our lord" i.e. Jesus. Those who do not believe JC is lord proclaim it inspite of their belief everytime they use the Christian dating method. For a religious Jew, Muslim or even and Atheist this is unacceptable. The Christian dating method is nothing less than a proclamation of faith. The secular BC/BCE is more acceptable because it proclaims nothing. In merely allows us to use the Gregorian calendar (which is the commonly accepted calendar, especially in academics)without asking us to proclaim something that we don't believe. This allows everyone to participate in the discussions by speaking "the same language." clarifies the issue for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanoachide (talk • contribs) 18:42, June 30, 2006.
- Of course. Just like all those people who are offended by the use of the names of pagan gods for the months and the days of the week. I might be inclined to agree with you if we regularly wrote "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini"; as it is, despite their expansions, most people do not think of "BC" and "AD" in religious terms. This is accentuated, of course, by the fact that the calculation of Christ's birth is inaccurate. So we have two acronyms, neither of which really stand for anything in particular, based on an arbitrary date.
- In addition, you must remember that the culture accompanying the English language is essentially a Christian one, or at least was historically. Attempts to pursue a similar campaign of revisionism in French or German would be ridiculed. I encourage people offended by the use of such language to Grow Up; I am not offended by the use of Anno Mundi or the Islamic calendar, and I doubt that anybody is.
- Your message seems to imply that some people have been advocating using calendars other than the Gregorian one (promulgated by a pope...), and that there are alternatives when writing in English. I would be interesting in learning what they are, out of curiosity.
- You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I wish you luck. Please remember to sign your posts, and I remind you not to change BC and AD to BCE and CE en masse - it is against Wikipedia policy.
- And finally, to all of you out there thinking of leaving a similar message, this is not the place to do it. Somebody revived the discussion a few weeks ago, and I do not want a debate I am not especially interested in occuring on my talk page. Take it to the discussion page of the Manual of Style. —Wereon 18:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)