User talk:HopsonRoad: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:25, 3 February 2020 editHopsonRoad (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users31,037 edits →That: R← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:23, 3 February 2020 edit undoCOLONEL77 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,521 edits →That Next edit →
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:It appears what was natural language to me (to include "that") is not natural to you. You also are concerned about which construction is grammatically correct. In consulting ], I see under '''Conjunction''' an example that reads, "He told me that the book is a good read", which supports my sense of the word's usage. However, under '''Usage notes''', it says, "''That'' can be used to introduce subordinate clauses, but can just as easily be omitted: one can say either “he told me '''that''' it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “''that'' clause”) or “he told me it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “bare clause”)", which explains your position as having validity, too.		:It appears what was natural language to me (to include "that") is not natural to you. You also are concerned about which construction is grammatically correct. In consulting ], I see under '''Conjunction''' an example that reads, "He told me that the book is a good read", which supports my sense of the word's usage. However, under '''Usage notes''', it says, "''That'' can be used to introduce subordinate clauses, but can just as easily be omitted: one can say either “he told me '''that''' it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “''that'' clause”) or “he told me it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “bare clause”)", which explains your position as having validity, too.
	:I'd be happy to open a discussion in ], if you feel strongly enough about this question. Cheers, ] (]) 01:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)		:I'd be happy to open a discussion in ], if you feel strongly enough about this question. Cheers, ] (]) 01:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

			======
			Can never figure how to go to Talk: so will continue here -
			Good evening and thank you for your fast response - Unfortunately the Colonel is doing all night television / radio after Super Bowl LIV - However, he would not consider any of above to be important enough to carry on with although as a person who over 60+ years has edited many hundreds of books, videos / television programs and news reports / radio news and reports and stories / proofreads thousands of stories and articles yearly, he has always been of opinion where a good number of words such as ' that ' are totally unnecessary in many instances, ' the both ' which is entirely and horribly wrong, ' off of ' which is employed / used most often in baseball where only word needed is ' off ' as no one sensibly steps down ' off of ' anything, as well as many other wrongly / poorly used words, so in editing Misplaced Pages entries has removed / altered / corrected many instances of these bad words to make things more grammatically correct and pleasing to eyes of readers / viewers - Therefore, he would just say to proceed as you see fit as you do these edits / adjustments / corrections on a regular basis so have more real / actual / practical experience and know what Misplaced Pages wishes to see entered - However, am wondering if you are reporting from somewhere other than North America as at times it appears English people have a different view on word usage ? - Thank you very much and all best wishes for a fine year in 2020. ( I am his wife / assistant ).

Revision as of 04:23, 3 February 2020

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7

Martha Rockwell

Hi HopsonRoad. Please be aware of WP:3RR. I would advise of not reverting on this page again. I see there's an ongoing discussion about the image in question, so I'd wait until that discussion is closed. Thanks. Lugnuts 14:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Demonstration (political) reversion

Hello!. You are reverted my edition ("This is a section on laws regarding protests, not reports of protests"). I believe two possibilities to save my edition:

1. Change the section title: Law by country -> Political demonstrations by country. This change would do the section more appropriate to the content of the article.

2. Add the laws. What laws for the creation of a new state?. Of course a lot of laws!. But if you prefer, these protests are against the Spanish Constitution where says in Section 2.: "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards". Then the resulting text:

In Catalonia, since 2012 and promoted by the Catalan independence movement, a large number of major demonstrations have taken place (about a half to one million participants each time), not only on the National Day of Catalonia (September 11). Demonstrations against the Spanish Constitution, Section 2, where says "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards". But also (and from 2017) other demonstrations has been placed to demand the freedom of political prisoners.

Jmarchn (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Jmarchn Thank you for your thoughts on the Demonstration (political) article. This is a discussion that you should begin at Talk:Demonstration (political) so that other editors can weigh in. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem adding a section (with a title immediately above the text) in the talk page (Talk:Demonstration (political)). The content of that page is absolutely chaotic. Proof it!. If you agree, I add the text of the option 2, provisionally, until the problem is resolved. Jmarchn (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Jmarchn I have moved your initial comment, above, to Talk:Demonstration (political)#Reversion. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Landcraft and landship questions

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

An editor has created a new page, Landcraft, as a DAB page for which there is no primary article, except the page itself (see: Talk:Landcraft). The same editor has expanded the Landship page, which has no references that support use of that term that are more recent than WWI references to tanks (see: Talk:Landship#False premise for article). I'm concerned that no-one else is paying attention to these edits to check whether they are appropriate. I have left a message with the editor at User talk:42Grunt#User talk:42Grunt. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll nominate the landship article for deletion; it appears to be pure OR, and while it might well be possible to write a valid article of the name, there's nothing salvageable in this page. A quick Google Books page indicates that indeed early tanks were called "landships", but the primary topic arguably is a type of Barbudian neighbourhood association, if I read the sources correctly.

I also agree that the "landcraft" page is inappropriate because there is no indication that any of the topics supposedly being disambiguated are commonly referred to as "landcraft". Since that page is new, a PROD may suffice there. Huon (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Landkreuzer

Minor quibble that doesn't belong in the category deletion discussion: In a military context, "Kreuzer" would evoke a cruiser, particularly for something armed with battlecruiser guns. So there are naval connotations here. Still, it's not called a "landship", and I don't think the term sees use in this context after WWI. Huon (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur, Huon. That's exactly what is implied by Landkreuzer. Nonetheless, "cruiser" comes from "cruise", which is a cognate of "cross" (both verb and noun). In the military sense, it referred to a ship with independent, long-distance missions cf. "cruiser" and "cruiser". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing at Talk:Smart highway

An IP editor at Talk:Smart highway appears to be using the page to promote his company's POV, in part by removing the writings of others. If I revert again, it will violate 3RR. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Promotional editing can be reported to WP:AIV(despite what it's called); COI editing to WP:COIN, edit warring can be reported to WP:ANEW, for future reference. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources and in what contexts

Hi! I'm here because of a question, and since you had left the welcome-cookies message on my talk page last year.

In a new article (all of which is subject to removal until consensus is found to put it back, per discussions in WP:VPP and WP:DRN), an editor has been removing sections that cite articles with no consensus on WP:RSPSOURCES – with the reason, "this isn't a RS." Often, these citations have been about statements, interviews or statistics that can be verified as true – but when no explicit RS has spoken about them, they have found this a reason to exclude such sections.

1. Is this editor in the right to remove such content, even if (it can be argued that) reliability isn't a concern for those citations (the content is verifiable independent of the source)?

2. In case of a dispute, is a consensus required to reinstate content even in such a situation where the deleting editor doesn't have a policy or a guideline to stand on?

(3.) In case there is no straight answer to the above, should I ask this question at WP:RSN, WP:VPP or somewhere else?

I will provide more context if necessary, but I tried to keep this concise for now. Thank you in advance! Selvydra (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Thank you for your question. WP:BURDEN suggests that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Generally what counts is found at WP:SOURCES. I note that direct citation of US Government statistics does not appear to fit the definition of a RS. It appears that WP:RSN would be a good place to start. I've no experience with this type of dispute. Another approach would be to discuss the question of whether each of the sources is reliable in the article's talk page, perhaps reserving a bulleted line for each. That would memorialize the question and help you to restore them to their proper locations after consensus was reached. Sorry to not be more knowledgeable about this! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That

Good Day - Per - AMY KOBUCHAR - with respect to your addition back of ' that ', you should be aware and know well, if you have had any kind of education, as to what is considered ' proper grammar ' where word 'that ' is totally and completely unnecessary, especially in the particular context in question as it plays no purpose, whatsoever, in a sentence ... Please kindly take a moment to read through sentence again to see for yourself, then maybe remove ' that ' ... Secondly, same is also correct where an ' a ' should properly appear where it was added ... Thank you very much for your time, COLONEL77

Sunday 2 February 2020 - 5:44 pm -

Hi COLONEL77, I appreciate your polite invitation to reconsider my edit. You are referring to my edit that changed: "In early 2005, U.S. Senator Mark Dayton announced he would not seek reelection" to "In early 2005, U.S. Senator Mark Dayton announced that he would not seek reelection".

It appears what was natural language to me (to include "that") is not natural to you. You also are concerned about which construction is grammatically correct. In consulting wiktionary:that, I see under Conjunction an example that reads, "He told me that the book is a good read", which supports my sense of the word's usage. However, under Usage notes, it says, "That can be used to introduce subordinate clauses, but can just as easily be omitted: one can say either “he told me that it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “that clause”) or “he told me it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “bare clause”)", which explains your position as having validity, too.

I'd be happy to open a discussion in Talk:Amy Klobuchar, if you feel strongly enough about this question. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

==

Can never figure how to go to Talk: so will continue here - Good evening and thank you for your fast response - Unfortunately the Colonel is doing all night television / radio after Super Bowl LIV - However, he would not consider any of above to be important enough to carry on with although as a person who over 60+ years has edited many hundreds of books, videos / television programs and news reports / radio news and reports and stories / proofreads thousands of stories and articles yearly, he has always been of opinion where a good number of words such as ' that ' are totally unnecessary in many instances, ' the both ' which is entirely and horribly wrong, ' off of ' which is employed / used most often in baseball where only word needed is ' off ' as no one sensibly steps down ' off of ' anything, as well as many other wrongly / poorly used words, so in editing Misplaced Pages entries has removed / altered / corrected many instances of these bad words to make things more grammatically correct and pleasing to eyes of readers / viewers - Therefore, he would just say to proceed as you see fit as you do these edits / adjustments / corrections on a regular basis so have more real / actual / practical experience and know what Misplaced Pages wishes to see entered - However, am wondering if you are reporting from somewhere other than North America as at times it appears English people have a different view on word usage ? - Thank you very much and all best wishes for a fine year in 2020. ( I am his wife / assistant ).