User talk:Brossow/Archives/2006-01

User	Talk	Talk Archives	Images	Watchlist	eMail

Leave a new message.

---

Grammar nazi

Hello again: here's the point I came to make. I just wanted to point out that you did not need to change the grammar in my contribution to Grammar nazi, although I do appreciate the irony :-). Oh, except for the dash, of course — hopefully this is one now? I speak British English, and was simply following the conventions of British English punctuation; according to Wiki rules, both AE and BE spelling and punctuation are allowed: "For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English".

As it says at quotation mark,

"The American convention is for sentence punctuation to be included inside the quotation marks, even if the punctuation is not part of the quoted sentence, while the British style is to have the punctuation outside the quotation marks for small quoted phrases:

Someone shouted ‘Shut up!’. (British)

Someone shouted “Shut up!” (American) "

... and this article on British punctuation gives even better examples:

"On the other hand, the presence of quotation marks does not remove the necessity of using other punctuation which is required for independent reasons. Look again at these examples:

According to Thomas Edison, "Genius is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration."

"The only emperor", writes Wallace Stevens, "is the emperor of ice cream."

The commas here are bracketing commas, used as usual to set off weak interruptions; their presence has nothing to do with the presence of a quotation, which is itself properly marked off by the quotation marks." ([1])

I just found another, perhaps better explanation: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pun1.htm .

I'm not going to change your AE back to BE, even though it looks just as awful to me as my BE probably did to you, as I don't want to be accused of being a nasty grammar nazi, but as you can see I'm pedantic enough not to be able to leave it at that (sorry, I can't help it!). In peace ... Saint|swithin

Thanks — I appreciate the welcome and the comment! All I'm asking is that we not get into a back-and-forth over which convention we're using, hence my comment on the Talk page.  :-) --BRossow 22:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't really appreciate you removing my addition

My apologies for posting anon, had no idea it violated some sacred wiki-rule or something. I'm not real fond of signing up in a gazillion places that I no intention of posting to regularly.

As for verification, how exactly would you suggest one document conversations in multiple threads on multiple World War IV BBS systems over 25 years ago? How many other users should I get to swear statements to it or something? I was using an Apple IIE with a 1200-baud modem at the time and its not like I or anyone else had any reason to save those threads,even assuming the media survived that long.

I made absolutely no issue of the official codification of "Godwin's Law", merely added that the concept had been common knowledge on public bulletin boards long before it migrated to USENET or any other aspect of the more modern "internet".

I'm not going to keep re-editing it or anything, but I am sick of the complete ignorance later internet users about the earlier days of BBS networks.

Eric Belser

FWIW, I've been online in one fashion or another since the late '70s, getting my start on an Apple ][ with a 300bps modem, the old handset-cradle style. Please don't lecture me with nothing but presumed superior experience as your excuse. But to the point: your addition, given the similar information that already existed on the page, would have been more appropriately brought up in Talk before being added to the page as fact. --BRossow 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Take it however you like,but I wasn't lecturing to you or anyone else. Merely asking what you, as a self-appointed authority on the subject would accept as proof of something which almost certainly no longer exists in any concrete form. The underlying concept was out there years before Godwin codified it and not just on USENET, a fact which was observed by myself and others, yet is completely missing from the entry.

Whatever, I freely admit I'm not a regular wiki user and after this round of blatant idiocy I'm certainly not inclined start.

Wikipedia entries must be based on verifiable facts whenever possible and not on vague memories. If documentation for an addition isn't possible for some reason, it should be discussed on the appropriate Talk page before being added to an article as fact. --BRossow 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dawson College issue...

I have recieved your message about the Dawson College request. Since Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a contact way to reach you, I'll post it here.

First of all, it was me who file a complaint first (actually, two complaints) to Wikipedia after days of non stop edits done by the other party (which added comments against the Dawson Adminstration) about all the edits that have been done (forcefully removal of links, added NPOV statements, offensive and unproven statements, such as coups and saying that the Dawson Adminstration and Dawson College as a whole. I have try to remain and fellow the Wikipedia policy of having neutral article and unbias statements.

Accusing me of doing edits after edits is falsely unfonded, as I have been defending Dawson College from days of slandering and unproven statements as stated above. Dawson College is my college, I go to it, I worked with student politics and I know what is going on. Please, check the discussion section of that article and OhnoitsJamie even helped correct the English and even requested to added links to both sides to fair the playing field (which was removed over and over by the other party)..

Also, the article saying "general fund as part of an ongoing battle over student union accreditation" is is actually false. First of all, that statement is untrue and there is no reference that stated that. However, I have minutes from the a Board of Governors meeting that all the money has been sit in a trust fund that either side can't be touch until the courts say who have control of it (still looking for it). It's not a battle about accreditation, it's about who is in control of the dues.

I hope this clears things up. I do apolgized on the situation, but an encyclopedia is a reference source containing information on a variety of topics. If you check the history, the old article was even worst off before I take the time to fix this issue. Thank you and I hope to get a reply from you shortly. (TuxedoInferno 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

You want the bottom line, Tux? It is not up to you to determine what can and cannot be added to the page, ESPECIALLY when the article is listed as a stub, is in need of major editing, and the info being added is not contrary to NPOV. Either quit reverting the page or be subjected to administrative action. --BRossow 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the last edit I did was corrected the misleading error that I have corrected (as stated before that state that "general fund as part of an ongoing battle over student union accreditation" is not true) and also added the minutes that proven that case. The court case is only about the money is due, not about accreditation. (TuxedoInferno 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, I think that may be POV on your part, as some have interpreted the administration's actions as being DIRECTLY related to the union's push for accreditation. You're clearly not as neutral as you think you are. As for the link to the minutes, I was in the process of adding that link back in when you made the edit first. But I'm going to point you to this policy and suggest in the strongest possible terms that you read it and take it to heart. You won't get another free pass from me as your behavior is obstructionist and unwelcome. --BRossow 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken it to heart and I'm sorry once again. Also, I'm not the only one who didn't fellow the policy. If you checked the history, I'm not the only one who violated Wikipedia policies. Because that I feel I'm the only one who actually have an account sign up to Wikipedia that I can be targeted right there, it's not really fair. I tried to keep it professional, neutral and hold what is to be an encyclopia. I made a few mistakes here and there, but making me that I'm the bad guy isn't really, well, unprofessional. I have a pile of docuements and evidences, but as I say in the Dawson College talk page, it's not for an encyclopedia and I do not want to bring the Dawson politics to Wikipedia. There is no place for that here. (TuxedoInferno 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Added a note for you down at the discussion page at the Dawson College article. Once again, I feel that this case is now close and if I have any other problems, I'll just come to you instead of just editing it myself.