| Revision as of 16:57, 27 December 2012 editBeenAroundAWhile (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users103,575 edits →VanderSloot page: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 29 December 2012 edit undoEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,796 edits →Missing terminal: Perhaps this is the version we should be concerned withNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| On your user page, you have a box that claims: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something that this user is okay with.” Prepositions are connectors. They connect two different words or phrases. The two connected words or phrases are terminals. The connecting preposition is between the terminals. If a sentence ends with a preposition, then one of the terminals is absent or difficult to locate. This is not conducive to communication. However, it is perfect accordance with the inevitable trend toward linguistic decadence. ] (]) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade. | On your user page, you have a box that claims: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something that this user is okay with.” Prepositions are connectors. They connect two different words or phrases. The two connected words or phrases are terminals. The connecting preposition is between the terminals. If a sentence ends with a preposition, then one of the terminals is absent or difficult to locate. This is not conducive to communication. However, it is perfect accordance with the inevitable trend toward linguistic decadence. ] (]) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade. | ||
| :I see your point; but ] is perfectly respectable for having a connective at the end. (It appears that Misplaced Pages is reversed as to which is ] and which ].... Oh, well.) "Why did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?" is virtually impossible to write grammatically, but it's quite comprehensible. It has split prepositions as well as split infinatives, but there is essentially a unique way of diagramming it. — ] ] 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) | :I see your point; but ] is perfectly respectable for having a connective at the end. (It appears that Misplaced Pages is reversed as to which is ] and which ].... Oh, well.) "Why did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?" is virtually impossible to write grammatically, but it's quite comprehensible. It has split prepositions as well as split infinatives, but there is essentially a unique way of diagramming it. — ] ] 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Said the little boy, tired of bedtime stories about Australia, to his father: "What did you bring that book, which I do no wish to be read to out of about Down Under, up for?" ] (]) 15:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"…only if we are convinced of the truth and importance of our ideas does the necessary enthusiasm arise to be intent on their clearest, finest, and most powerful expression…." (Schopenhauer, ''Parerga and Paralipomena'', vol. ii, § 285) ] (]) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade | ::::"…only if we are convinced of the truth and importance of our ideas does the necessary enthusiasm arise to be intent on their clearest, finest, and most powerful expression…." (Schopenhauer, ''Parerga and Paralipomena'', vol. ii, § 285) ] (]) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade | ||
Revision as of 15:32, 29 December 2012
Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.
|
|
Status
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages because of hostile editing environment.
TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Request for comment
You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)
Child abuse
Hi Arthur. You rolled it back too far. In rightly deleting a load of newly added stuff you also deleted my edits, which were mainly getting rid of unsourced assertions, so you put the unsourced assertions back. Like you, I was trying to clean it up and get rid of crap. I have deleted them again now. -- Alarics (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I'm sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Missing terminal
On your user page, you have a box that claims: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something that this user is okay with.” Prepositions are connectors. They connect two different words or phrases. The two connected words or phrases are terminals. The connecting preposition is between the terminals. If a sentence ends with a preposition, then one of the terminals is absent or difficult to locate. This is not conducive to communication. However, it is perfect accordance with the inevitable trend toward linguistic decadence. Lestrade (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade.
- I see your point; but reverse Polish notation is perfectly respectable for having a connective at the end. (It appears that Misplaced Pages is reversed as to which is Polish notation and which reverse Polish notation.... Oh, well.) "Why did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?" is virtually impossible to write grammatically, but it's quite comprehensible. It has split prepositions as well as split infinatives, but there is essentially a unique way of diagramming it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Said the little boy, tired of bedtime stories about Australia, to his father: "What did you bring that book, which I do no wish to be read to out of about Down Under, up for?" EEng (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- "…only if we are convinced of the truth and importance of our ideas does the necessary enthusiasm arise to be intent on their clearest, finest, and most powerful expression…." (Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, vol. ii, § 285) Lestrade (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
- Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which this user is not okay. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- What part of speech is "okay"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- According to Wiktionary on "OK", it can be a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, or interjection depending on the circumstances. In this case, I think it would be an adjective. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- What part of speech is "okay"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- (1) The English language is subject to the rules of English grammar. English is not Reverse Polish Notation, so Rubin's comparison to RPN is not valid. (2) I would re-write Rubin's example sentence "gramatically", but I have no idea what it means. It's far from being "quite comprehensible". But it seems to mean something like "I didn't want you to read from that book; why did you bring it?". (3) Nevertheless, the admonition against ending a sentence with a preposition is considered a myth by most grammarians, according to everything I've read. Even among those who consider it wrong, it's not considered a serious error. (4) Misplaced Pages does not have Polish Notation and Reverse Polish Notation switched; Misplaced Pages has them correct. Polish Notation is a prefix notation, and Reverse Polish Notation is a postfix notation. SimpsonDG (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which this user is not okay. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
When you write, "I have no idea what it means. It's far from being 'quite comprehensible'" you are in full accordance with my claim that prepositional endings are "not conducive to communication."Lestrade (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
- When you write, "I have no idea what it means," you show that you do not understand colloquial English. This is not a fault. It can be parsed easily into to grammatical sentences:
- Why did you bring up the book?
- I did not want to be read to out of the book.
- Can you reconstruct those into one sentence? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages See Also Policy
You recently removed concentrated benefits and diffuse costs from the see also section of quite a few entries. However, Misplaced Pages See Also policy clearly states that links in the see also section can be "tangentially related"...
- The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
So please undo your recent edits. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- "See also" can be used for tangentially related topics; except it should not be used if the topic is better related to one of the other topics already there. In other words, if B should be in "A"s "See also", and C should be in "B"s "See also", then C should not be in "A"s "See also" unless it is closely related to A. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- You removed CB/DC from Crony capitalism because it was "only tangentially related". However, Misplaced Pages See Also policy clearly states that "tangentially related" topics are acceptable in the See Also section. And how could they only be "tangentially related" when crony capitalism and CB/DC are both examples of government failure?
- "See also" can be used for tangentially related topics; except it should not be used if the topic is better related to one of the other topics already there. In other words, if B should be in "A"s "See also", and C should be in "B"s "See also", then C should not be in "A"s "See also" unless it is closely related to A. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please please please do more research and less editing. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. That means that only government failure should be listed in crony capitalism, not concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. I see that wasn't done, either. Now fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you fail to understand the concepts and their relationships to each other...and your edits clearly reflect this. Please thoroughly familiarize yourself with any concept BEFORE you make any edit to its entry. --Xerographica (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. That means that only government failure should be listed in crony capitalism, not concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. I see that wasn't done, either. Now fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please please please do more research and less editing. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Demonstrated vs Revealed Preference
I just told you to thoroughly research a concept BEFORE editing its entry. And what did you do? You immediately redirected demonstrated preference to revealed preference even though the difference between the two concepts was explicitly stated. Not only that but you didn't even have the common courtesy to bring up the proposed redirect on the talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Arthur Rubin is the reason I ended up leaving Misplaced Pages. I got really tired of dealing with this kind of nonsense. SimpsonDG (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was no difference stated, and there was nothing in "demonstrated" which wasn't in "revealed", other than quotes which would fit equally well in either one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
RFC/U for Apteva: move to close
I am notifying all participants in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:
Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.
Best wishes,
Noetica 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
FP Top 100 global thinkers
I was surprised to see today that you were still working on this--after you left a comment on my talk page about it last month and then deleted it, I figured that was the end of it. Anyway, I'm restoring these awards to about 2/3s of the articles if you've no objection. It's a major and respected publication, so it doesn't seem to me excessive detail to mention it for most of these articles. (I agree it should be removed from more widely decorated figures like Krugman, Murakami, etc.) Let me know if you find this acceptable. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- It was still block evasion; with the exception of those where it was placed in an incorrect section (such as "publications") or in the lead, I have no objection to reinclusion. It shouldn't be in the lead unless the person has no other recognition. I question inclusion where two people are given one listing in the list, or if an organization's article is credited with the inclusion of invividuals, not necessarily associated with their activities in the organization, but I'll leave that to you. After all, that IP cluster was one of the forces behind "granting" Michael Mann a Nobel Prize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I've restored some, but not all; in a few cases I've moved from the lead section to deeper in an article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Block evasion
Hi Arthur. I noticed that you spend a lot of time reverting edits of a blocked editor, e.g. recently at 2012 North American drought and on my talk page. I have a couple of questions about this - first, who is the editor that was blocked originally and why were they blocked? Second, why if there is well referenced information added are you reverting it, even after I had reviewed it and replaced it? WP:BLOCKEVASION doesn't say anything about mass reverting of socks, and I seen other admins declining speedy deletion request under WP:CSD#G5 even if they technically meet the criteria, because they are a net improvement to the project. I can understand why it might be sensible to revert their edits if they might be problematic, but I haven't seen any where this is the case - am I missing something? Third, have you/anyone else tried talking to the editor? They appear to me to be acting in good faith, so I'm a bit confused why they are repeatedly blocked. Even if they caused problems before, isn't there a chance they could change? It seems counterproductive to me to spend ages removing properly referenced material. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hope you don't mind if I answer SmartSE Arthur.
- On content, that edit should be reposted if it has not already. In my book it is the winner of the "substantive contribution" award - out of literally thousands of entries - for this block-evading-external-link-spamming sock by at least an order of magnitude. Too bad he doesn't discipline himself to just make a single edit of at least that much substance each session.
- As for who the sock is, see my efforts at reforming the sock's behavior (partial account)
- As for why we think he is blocked, see the edit and block log for this sock
- Please let me know if you are irked or disagree with my interjection, Arthur.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine. Due to personal matters, I don't have as much time to spend on Misplaced Pages as I would like. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The happiness of this season to you !
|
Winter solstice 2012–2013 |
| — GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
Recent Edits
Please try and seek consensus on talk pages before making edits that are clearly disputed. --Xerographica (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. Arthur Rubin is right about these redirects. As I've commented on your talk page, Xerographica, your edits are not constructive. --S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- How is he "right" about the redirects when there are absolutely no reliable sources to support them? --Xerographica (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
|
Happy Holidays! |
| From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
VanderSloot page
'I don't recall if sources here have been misrepresented, other than repeating "reliable" sources misquoting the actual text of an advertisement, but on a number of SPLC-related articles, many sources have been misrepresented.' SPLC leads to a DAB page, so maybe you could be more specific? Just a suggestion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)