User talk:Wavelength/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you! Copy-editing the Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style[edit]

Hi Wavelength: Thanks hugely for copy-editing the concise version of the MoS main page; you have most certainly improved it!

I hope you don't mind my removing "that" in two places, under "Images": "Most pictures should be displayed so they are between 100 and 400 pixels wide. The maximum should generally not exceed 500 pixels in height or 400 pixels in width, so the image can be comfortably displayed within the text on the smallest displays in common use."

I used to include "that" in such cases, until User:Hoary removed it from one of my pages and I realised it's usually unnecessary (and clogs a little). Tony (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I might check it again in the future.
I do not mind your removal of "that" in two places. For precision in such instances, I prefer to restrict "so" to clauses indicating result, and "so that" to clauses indicating purpose. However, I am aware of people using "so" for purpose and "so that" for result. (For those who say, "Such precision is unnecessary if the meaning is evident from the context", I say, "It is evident this time, but it might not be evident the next time, so there is less ambiguity if we practice precision every time.")
I gave a heading to this discussion, after some pondering. In this instance, I found it challenging to choose one that would be brief (without abbreviations) and precise, so I decided in favor of a little more precision and a little less brevity than what I might usually choose.
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few MoS regulars have complained that some of the wordings are too "terse". They may be right in a few cases, but I'm unconvinced that readers can't easily adapt to the brevity. Wordiness is what puts a lot of people off the MoS. A related misgiving is the use of point-initial bolded themes. Your thoughts on both? Tony (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you did give a heading to this discussion, but that you misplaced it, above the introductory information. Therefore, I am combining your heading ("Thank you!") with the one which I composed, and which I discussed above at 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC). On the matter of terseness versus wordiness, I need to consider specific instances separately. If, by "point-initial bolded themes", you mean boldface text such as "Seasons" under WP:MOS#Calendar items, then of course they are an aid to navigation, and I am surprised that someone would find such a thing to be objectionable. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica[edit]

I'm afraid he walked out a few weeks ago, blaming me. I'm unsure what the issue is, since he refuses to communicate. Possessives at MoS? Tony (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information, even though it is very negative. By saying that "he walked out", do you mean that he left Wikipedia in a more definitive way than previously? (See User talk:Noetica#A wikibreak.) For identifying what the issue is, there might be a clue in his latest edit, at 12:06, 22 August 2009. You probably understand his personality much better than I do. Does he refuse to communicate even by e-mail? Is it possible that what seems to be refusal is actually an inability caused by extenuating circumstances?
Because of the very important influence that both of you have had in developing the Manual of Style, and because of the importance of the Manual of Style in guiding the editing of Wikipedia articles, and because of the very great influence of Wikipedia on the Internet, it is critical that both of you be very careful of your relationship with each other. I am reminded of the keystone influence of parents in a family, and of how an upheaval in their relationship can have devastating repercussions for their children. Likewise, disagreements in a business partnership can cause serious problems to its employees.
If Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee is analogous to a court, does Wikipedia have anything analogous to relationship counseling? We have Category:Wikipedia user conduct and Category:Wikipedia conduct policies, but is there anything to provide real-time guidance for specific relationships, with analogous privacy?
Noetica has definitely been a very valuable asset to Wikipedia, and his absence is a severe loss. He has weathered the unappreciative treatment dealt to him by a number of less qualified editors, but I might have thought that you would be his most loyal supporter, and maybe you are. For my part, I believe that the Manual of Style (including all its subpages) would fare much better if he made all the final decisions about it unilaterally. I have seen his extraordinary skill in trying to overcome the impasse concerning possessives, and the inadequate response to his four-part questionnaire. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Recent changes to the "Possessives" section.) By necessity, it involves deep thinking, which might have been too much for some editors. I myself did not complete the questionnaire, but I stated my reason. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Let's start anew and solve this? on the same page.) If editors are unable to give adequate counterarguments to his proposals, then at least they can get out of the way and let real progress take place. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably to do with that reversion and a difficult exchange beforehand about the wording that was about to be posted.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding discussion followed my contribution to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style at 15:22, 22 September 2009, in a discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#Silently correct typos in quotes?, and specifically under the following subheading: "[Sic]" considered harmful. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Noetica first appeared on the Ref Desks, we struck up a good rapport, and because we lived not too far from each other at the time, I suggested we meet up. He was open to the idea, and my partner and I spent a lovely few hours at his home, around Easter 2008. (This, by the way, was only the second one-to-one meeting I’ve ever proposed in my almost 6 years here, and the only one that actually occurred). He’s a fascinating fellow – not that I was at all surprised about that. I remember him recommending Tony as an excellent and erudite editor for whom he had great respect. So, I’m saddened they’ve had some sort of parting of the ways. I hope it doesn’t spell the end of Noetica’s relationship with WP entirely; we can ill afford to lose such a resource. We said we’d keep in touch, but that hasn’t happened much. I did call him when he mysteriously vanished the first time (this would have been about a year ago now), just to make sure he was ok. He was fine; just busy with real life events, and WP was assuming a rather low priority. I can only assume that’s the reason again. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on collaborative vs group performance[edit]

Thanks; it's a good piece. It suggests that the lack of real collaboration among WP editors (rather, it's normally a group effort) is good for outcomes. This is reinforced by the fact that most editing is based on secondary sources rather than difficult original research. Perhaps it explains why the style and policy pages are so fraught with tension. Tony (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is in response to my message on your talk page. Discussions are easier to follow if they are not divided on separate talk pages. That is why, in the rectangle at the top of this page, I requested that any editor wishing to respond to a message by me on that editor's talk page do so on the same page.
In the four-page article "Are two heads better than one?", at http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_15-editionID_89-ArticleID_491-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/dec02thompson.pdf, the most salient information for me is found on the second page (page 617). Under the heading "So do too many cooks always spoil the broth?", and more specifically under the subheading "Friend or stranger?", the author suggests that collaboration is beneficial to memory when friends are involved, because of the degree to which they understand and trust the working of each other's memory. She suggests that strangers are more prone to misunderstand each other, and more prone to mistrust (or to misplace trust in) each other–thus, collaboration hinders memory performance. I made the extrapolation that those effects might apply to collaborative activities more generally, not only to remembering, but also to decision-making and to other mental activities.
Maybe Wikipedia would function better (though still not perfectly) if its editors were organized according to mutually shared ways of thinking.
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia River[edit]

Thanks for your excellent -- and clearly explained -- edits to the newly-FA'ified Columbia River. Much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of class action lawsuits[edit]

I have nominated List of class action lawsuits, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of class action lawsuits. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. I am removing the duplicate notification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of gender equality lawsuits[edit]

I have nominated List of gender equality lawsuits, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gender equality lawsuits. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions I've asked on the Reference Desks[edit]

Wow! Such a service deserves acknowledgment, and thanks. We are indeed on the same "wavelength", because more than once I've thought of creating exactly this list, but never got around to it. There are probably just as many again on Miscellaneous, Humanities and Entertainment. I've also asked a few questions at Science and Mathematics. Thanks again. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is in response to my message at 03:16, 24 October 2009 on your talk page. If you do put those 77 links on a new subpage, please provide me with a link to that subpage. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punct.[edit]

Thanks for the links. I've read the Eats, Shoots book; it was a little disappointing to me, but everyone liked it. Tony (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is in response to my messages at User talk:Tony1 [Section 22, "PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting)"].
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"because of"[edit]

I noticed that you've been changing instances of "due to" to "because of", often in places where the latter doesn't make sense. The two words are both prepositions, but they have different meanings. You shouldn't change one to the other just because of a prescriptivist injunction. Bob A (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to some "places where the latter doesn't make sense". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambodia&diff=prev&oldid=324767997. Bob A (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed

The recovery of Cambodia's economy slowed dramatically in 1997–98, due to the regional economic crisis, civil violence, and political infighting.

to

The recovery of Cambodia's economy slowed dramatically in 1997–98, because of the regional economic crisis, civil violence, and political infighting.

The first version does not make sense, because none of the things represented by the nouns in the preceding clause was due to the problems mentioned in the rest of the sentence. The economy slowed because of those problems, therefore the second version does make sense. (http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What definition of "due to" are you using? Anyway, my point was that prescriptivism isn't a good reason to avoid using certain constructions. Bob A (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In saying that none of those things was due to those problems, I am using the definition "caused by", where "caused" is a participial adjective. I am using the context to decide what meaning was probably intended. However, I have been leaving unchanged other instances, where "due to" does mean "caused by" or means "scheduled to".
My first impulse to avoid "due to" in the corrected instances is from my own judgement. However, I have provided a web address to support my decision. Even if some references allow that usage (http://www.onelook.com/?w=due+to&ls=a), "because of" is more logical. I disagree with your point about linguistic prescription. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[I am inserting a comma before a non-restrictive clause: where "due to" does mean "caused by" or means "scheduled to".
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Are you basically arguing that "due to" shouldn't be used in certain syntactic contexts because it comes from a participle? Bob A (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that it is illogical in some contexts because due is an adjective. Please consider the following sentence: Adolf insured his store for one million dollars, due to the gangster criminals in his precinct. Which noun does the adjective due modify?
If the last eight words are intended to modify the first eight words, then the sentence lacks a linking verb connecting the adjective due with a noun among the first eight words. The following sentence makes sense: Adolf insured his store for one million dollars, because of the gangster criminals in his precinct.
Here is another sentence: At the dog show, Sandra received a prize, due to her charming and talented companion dog. Which noun does the adjective due modify?
The following sentence makes sense: At the dog show, Sandra received a prize, because of her charming and talented companion dog. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In both of those sentences, "due" doesn't modify any noun because it's part of the preposition "due to". Look it up on wiktionary. p.s. The definition on french wiktionary might be more helpful. Bob A (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At wikt:due to, the adjective "due" modifies the noun "unemployment" in the first sentence and the noun "accident" in the second sentence. The definition at fr:wikt:due to is not more helpful.
My Google search for the exact wording "due to vs because of" reported millions of results.
Some people in the mass media have popularized the misuse of "due to", and some reference works have condoned that misuse, but those are not reasons for Wikipedia to copy them. Readers who know the proper use and the misuse of "due to" will have a less favorable impression of Wikipedia from seeing it misused, but there is not that problem when "due to" is corrected to "because of". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that "due to" is a preposition. If you want to call something a "misuse" because some people artificially restrict their speech to exclude it, then go ahead, but that doesn't reflect the way the language is actually used. I'm not aware of anything in the MoS that mandates such awkward formalities. Bob A (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that "due" is an adjective and modifies a noun. In the two sample sentences which I presented above, it modifies the nouns "dollars" and "prize", if the sentences are formed correctly.
It's not an adjective in that context as evidenced in the fact that "due to" is used as a preposition, even in contexts where it doesn't refer to any noun. Also, it can't be used by itself. In the wiktionary examples you'd have *"Rising unemployment due is spreading." and *"The accident was due." Bob A (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is neither artificial nor awkward for people who are adept in applying it. On the other hand, errors are widespread in the way in which English is actually used.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Further reading says: "Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with other guides to style and usage, which may cover details that are not included in this Manual of Style." That is what I have done. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any dialect where that usage is forbidden. Furthermore, how can you say that something is an error when it's actually in use? Bob A (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"because of" (part 2)[edit]

This message begins with some preliminary comments. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am adding four tildes after each sentence, because you interrupted my previous message. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to respond to all of your points adequately but concisely. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now please do not interrupt any of my sentences. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a separate decision, I am also starting a new subsection, for easier editing. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reproducing here the two Wiktionary examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Rising unemployment due to the economic downturn is spreading." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The accident was due to the breaking of one of the blades of the propeller on the left side." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am analyzing here the two Wiktionary examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In those two sentences, "due to" is equivalent to "caused by". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those two sentences, "due to" can be replaced by "caused by" with no change of meaning. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those two sentences, the words "due" and "caused" are both adjectives. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentences are absurd. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Rising unemployment due is spreading." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rising unemployment caused is spreading." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentences are generally absurd, except perhaps in philosophical contexts. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective "due" can be separated from the preposition "to" when the object of the preposition is an interrogative pronoun or a relative pronoun. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred you to a few style guides (and some logic) which forbid the usage in question. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have referred me to no style guide (and no logic) which forbids the use of "because of". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate my contention. The use of the word "due to" where the word "due" doesn't appear to refer to a noun (let's call that "adverbial "due to"") is common, even (or perhaps especially) in writing. No native speaker would recognise it as an error, any more than they would recognise "who are you talking to?" as an error. Grammatically, it isn't problematic at all because "due to" functions as a prepositon, just like "regardless of" and "according to". Even if a sentence doesn't make sense when the word "due" is treated as an adjective, it makes sense when "due to" is treated as a preposition, because prepositional phrases can function either adjectivally or adverbially. If you try to force "due" to be an adjective, no matter how much it's used to the contrary, then you're just being unscientific. Linguistics is a science, and all scientific theories need to be falsifiable.
The more difficult question is whether this usage should be avoided on wikipedia because it's perceived as informal or bad style. I rather doubt that it should and the few websites you linked to don't seem nearly authoritative enough to establish such a rule. If you still disagree, then i suppose we should bring this up on the MoS page, but i honestly can't be bothered to mess with that. Bob A (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many errors are common even in writing by professional writers. (http://linguisoft.com/) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to choose our exemplars more carefully now than in the past. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are people and also style guides that regard adverbial "due to" as an error. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing "due to" to be adverbial is considered by them to be incorrect. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style will probably not ever include a guideline about "due to". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been proposals at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for it to be reduced in size. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the right-hand side of the Manual, there is a list of subpages. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those subpages seems to be applicable to "due to". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the Manual, there is a link to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those guidelines seems to be applicable to "due to". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant Wikipedia pages seem to be the following. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to spend much time in discussing this issue. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "according to" can be used either adjectivally or adverbially. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Matthew, the Gospel is interesting. (adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gospel according to Matthew is interesting. (adjectivally) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gospel, according to Matthew, is interesting. (adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gospel is interesting, according to Matthew. (adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other errors include confusion of the following expressions. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on" (used adjectivally) and "on the basis of" (used adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clyde criticized the report based on unreliable rumors. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clyde criticized the report on the basis of unreliable rumors. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre" (prefix) and "before" (preposition) and "before" (conjunction) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding was a prewar ceremony. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding took place before the war. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding took place before the war began. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "post" (prefix); "after" (preposition); "after" (conjunction); "following" (participial adjective) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding was a postwar ceremony. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding took place after the war. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding took place after the war ended. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wedding was a ceremony following the war. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"because of" (part 3)[edit]

I do not know which websites you would consider to be adequately authoritative. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[in reply to no particular one of the above points] Given that you seem to suggest that usages can be "errors" even when they're common in professional writing, what would falsify your proposition that adverbial "due to" is incorrect? Bob A (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since your latest message here, I have been researching falsifiability in various places. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The falsifiability theory seems faulty, and I offer no falsifier with the ban on adverbial "due to". Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mcgowan seems to me to confuse specific variations of a theory (e.g., evolution by natural selection without punctuated equilibria) with the "theory" itself (e.g., "evolution"). It seems axiomatic to me that for information to have empirical content implies that it's falsifiable. In linguistics, prescriptions such as the rule against adverbial "due to" are considered separate from descriptive rules, which model how a language works. By the way, most professional linguists take a very dim view of prescriptivism. (Take a look, for example, at the language log.) Bob A (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is this really your first barnstar?[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For sparing me (and others) this. Paradoctor (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would've put this on your user page, but it doesn't seem to fit into your layout, so I'll leave the proper display to you. Thanks again. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wavelength#Works on subpages has a link to User:Wavelength/Awards, where there are four previous barnstars. Thank you for putting it here, and for leaving the display to me. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what a conundrum[edit]

nice work a few days ago at the ref desk with my question : ]  ?EVAUNIT神の人間の殺害者 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your message follows my second contribution to "Chain conundrums, anyone?" on the page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language at 03:19, 17 November 2009. You might like to see Willard R. Espy and Espy Foundation. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Lebanon, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Eugeniu Bmsg 06:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Your posting of the same external links on numerous articles is patently unhelpful, and I really urge you to read WP:ELNO. I'm particularly concerned about your attempts to push sites run by trial lawyers on asbestos and mesothelioma pages. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive search box[edit]

Neat, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. (I edited User talk:Adam Bishop at 20:11, 1 December 2009.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the effort. Matt Deres (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. (I edited User talk:Matt Deres at 20:19, 1 December 2009.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed, Wavelength; I've installed it at the top of my talk page. BTW, for a while now the Werdnabot auto-archiver on my talk page seems to have broken down. Things are piling up. It's still listed as in the Werdnabot category at the bottom. I have no idea what has happened, and I'm not good at fixing things like that. Is there a better auto-archiver around, anyway? Tony (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you can use Misza13's bot to auto-archive. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you are welcome. (I edited User talk:Tony1 at 17:36, 1 December 2009.) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on how archiving bots function, but I know that the operator of User:Werdnabot is User:Werdna, and I suggest that you leave a message at User talk:Werdna, explaining the problem. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_inciden[edit]

This is obscure at best [1]. That article is the subject of much edit warring. Please don't add such links without a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not responding earlier than this. When I first saw your message, I gave some thought to preparing a response, but I needed more time and a less distracting circumstance for considering the matter and for choosing my thoughts and words. Generally, I find editing to be much easier than discussions. Therefore, I generally avoid potentially controversial edits, but this one seemed to be worth a try.
The relation which I made between the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the cosmological constant was not a relation between meteorology and cosmology. It was a relation between two different cases of managing scientific evidence. Albert Einstein proposed the cosmological constant so that general relativity would agree with a static universe. According to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Content of the documents, paragraph 1 (permanent link), scientists purportedly discussed how to manage scientific evidence in ways that would favor the climate change consensus. Apparently, neither Einstein nor the climate scientists needed to make those adjustments but simply needed to maintain confidence in their research and to exercise patience, Einstein toward further research and the climate scientists toward public opinion. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. While I don't think you've quite got that right from the climate side, I understand (now) what you were trying to do. However I think the connection is too obscure to be useful, though I've discussed the analogy on blogs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Wikipedians/William M. Connolley. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re Flagged revision links[edit]

Many thanks. I finally got caught up after watchlist overload :-) left a note on User talk:Alan Liefting but guess I should drop a thank you here, too...

Especially since I saw that neat archive search box you left for Tony1 ... and stole a copy for myself. Hope you don't mind. :-) Cheers, and happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. (For my convenience, I am providing a permanent link to my revision of User talk:Alan Liefting and a permanent link to my revision of User talk:Tony1.) Both talk pages have been continuously on my watchlist for a long time, the former for more than two years and the latter for more than six months.
I do not mind that you adapted the archive search box to your own user page. I adapted mine from either Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, I do not remember which. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Industrial design and Design Portal[edit]

I recently posted the following text on Wikipedia regarding the creation of a new Visual arts/Technology-related project in Wikipedia:

WikiProject Industrial design is a Wikipedian community that aims to better organize information in articles related to Industrial design (also called Product design).

  • If I'm cor-rec-to, there are about 900 articles on Industrial design in Wikipedia...
  • At least, it's more than for Typography, and there IS a Typography WikiProject...
  • And it's more than the Fashion WikiProject with 482 articles...
  • There is also an Urban studies and planning project and a Video games portal so...
  • Now you can also see a proposal for the Design Portal. (that portal would be for Industrial design AND Graphic design/Interior design)

Please support this initiative,
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
Techno-Wiki-Geek 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans[edit]

I posted a couple photos of this condition at the medicine talk page. Perhaps we could collaborate to make this article a DYK? ---kilbad (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. Unfortunately, I do not wish to spend time on the WP:DYK process. However, if you want me to copyedit the article in the future, please leave a request for that—in this same section, if this page is not yet archived. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

due to, because of[edit]

Hi Wavelength,

According to the OED, "due to" means "owing to". Pace the site here,[2] it doesn't mean "caused by". Some of the substitutions you're making sound quite awkward. A couple examples: (Sat. Evening Post) "So far, due to engineering controls, more precise than any known to industry, this has never happened." (Times) "Largely due to the defence efforts of the Western Powers, Europe was in a state of stalemate." The sentence you changed at Na'vi language, "The speaker is happy about it, whether due to success or ..." was good the way it was; "whether because of success" is not current English. kwami (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The external link which you provided says that "due to" does mean "caused by". I regard your two examples to be examples of incorrect usage. Google reports six results for "whether because of success" and seven results for "whether due to success". Of those seven, The Openness of Knowledge Sharing within Organizations: A Comparative Study of the United States and the People's Republic of China. | Asia > East Asia from AllBusiness.com uses "due to" eight times, sometimes incorrectly and sometimes correctly. It uses "due to" correctly in the following sentence: "Our company tends to work extremely well as a team and any lessons or expertise, whether due to success or failure, are shared and valued." (I might want to repeat "due to" after "or".) In that sentence, the adjective "due" modifies the noun phrase "any lessons or expertise". Of those six search results for "whether because of success", Windows API Guide: MM_MCINOTIFY Message uses "because of" correctly in this sentence: "This tells the window that the MCI command has finished, whether because of success, failure, or some other event."
(2) The expression "owing to" is similar to "due to" in that "owing" and "due" are both adjectives ("owing" is an active participial adjective and "due" was derived from a French passive participial adjective.) I acknowledge that some reference works approve of "owing to" in places where they say that "due to" is wrong. However, I would limit the use of "owing to" in the same way that I would limit the use of "due to".
(3) The mainstream media collectively could have been leaders in education, to the greater benefit of society, but they have sold themselves to the pursuit of entertainment, which is more profitable in the short term. Entertainers and advertisers have their various motives for the ways in which they use the English language, sometimes eagerly trying to appeal to the less educated members of their audiences, and disregarding the more educated members. (The mainstream media have even acted as accomplices in a worldwide hoax, and in so doing have abused the trust of millions of innocent victims. Trust and trustworthiness are lacking to a very large degree in society.) I do not want to emulate the mainstream media in their misuse of the language, even if other consumers willingly allow themselves to be manipulated by them. Truth and logic are more important than excitement. Entertainment is inadequate as a substitute for encouragement. Integrity is more important than popularity. Fortunately for all of us, bad habits can be replaced by good habits.
(4) Please see another discussion of "due to" and "because of" at #"because of". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A large portion of writers use "due to" as a synonym of "because of". This is de facto English usage in sources ranging from academia to worldwide media. Arguments and links to style guides have little bearing because the rules of language usage are only defined by the way in which language is widely used and accepted. The many sources that editors link to frequently use "due to" in this way (one recent example from The Times for instance), and editors usage of this is simply a reflection of the de facto usage (acknowledged on List of English words with disputed usage). References to depictions of Santa being child abuse are inconsequential to this point (and frankly bizarre).
These so-called corrections are a waste of your, and everybody else's, time. Indeed, they seem to contradict the second general principle within our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Let's talk about this there. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 111#Due to → Because of.
See also Wikipedia:Why Santa Is Important. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted uses of "due to" that are ambiguous, although the examples above don't seem to be. But if Wavelength wants to improve the style by changing this tired, lazy expression to "because of", good on him. It's like "over 3000", which I often change to "more than 3000", which I believe is nicer style in a formal context, and which is sometimes ambiguous. Tony (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "because of" reads better as an introductory particle: Because of such-n-such, he never had a chance to ..., whereas "due to" reads better as a concluding particle: He never had a chance to ..., due to the such-n-such. kwami (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/EEA lists[edit]

User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/EEA lists, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/EEA lists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/EEA lists during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Triplestop x3 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apologies. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Piange ... Il Telefono"[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to say "thank you" for your help (and hard work) at providing the translation to this song for me at the Language Reference Desk. Thank you so much. Your replies, your translation, the background information that you provided, and the links you directed me to were extremely helpful. This was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! This is such a great song ... but I only enjoyed the music / melody until now. I had no idea what the words / meaning were until today. So, of course, with that context, I now enjoy the song 100 times moreso. Thank you for your efforts. I sincerely appreciate your help! (Joseph Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again ... I really appreciate it. I am sure I will be seeing you around the Ref Desks ... you seem to contribute a lot there. Thanks, take care. (Joseph Spadaro (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Registers[edit]

Howdy. Could we not include the category for these registers? Otherwise User:VeblenBot thinks they've been added to the manual of style and reports them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style#Wikipedia:Manual of_Style_.28disambiguation_pages.29.2FRegister_has_been_marked_as part_of_the_Manual_of_Style and elsewhere. If there's a problem, perhaps talk to the botowner. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the last few days, I started the following pages.
Of those four pages, I categorized the second, third, and fourth in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, because I deemed them to be members of that category. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS subsection on quotation marks[edit]

Please explain how this edit constitutes "reverting slang 'quotes' to correct expression 'quotation marks'". Powers T 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "reverting informal 'quotes' to formal expression 'quotation marks' ". [3] An encyclopedia should use formal language.
Please explain how this revision is related to grammar. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. I changed several instances of the word "quote", which is a verb but was being used as a noun, to "quotation mark". You reverted me. I'm trying to figure out why. Powers T 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I apologize for misreading your revision. I have reverted my reversion. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am revising the heading of this section to make it more specific. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Image of US postage stamp[edit]

Greetings, I have just uploaded to Wiki-Commons a photo-image (Byrd_Antarctic_Expedition-II_3c.jpg) of a US 3c postage stamp commemorating Admiral Byrd's Expeditions to the Antarctic. It is an engraved stamp, issued in 1934, the year of Byrd's last expedition to the Antarctic and has remarkable detail, depicting a map and Byrd's various trips about the globe.

Byrd's Expedition's were just as popular then as the first Space-Shuttle launches were today, and the stamp is a historical earmark or documentation, of this event.

If you feel it is appropriate to include this image on the 'Richard Evelyn Byrd' page please feel free to do so if no one else has yet. I am a novice at HTML editing, at best, so I'll leave these things to those who are adept. Best of regards, GwillHickers (username) Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byrd_Antarctic_Expedition-II_3c.jpg. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i have started a discussion at Talk:Richard Evelyn Byrd#Image of US postage stamp. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—WT:MOS/x and WT:MOS(x)[edit]

Hi WL, it's a small point, but in moving that page to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(quotation_and_punctuation), it means there's no link on the page back to the MoS talk page. The usual thing is to use a slash, not round brackets, for subpages of talk pages. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here, it links back to the MoS talk page. We should really be moving the subpages back to slash, and away from round brackets. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge your messages. I am in a hurry to do non-Wikipedia activities now. I hope to have a thoughtful reply for you within 12 hours.
-- Wavelength (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, WL, there's no rush, and as I said, it's a minor point. I see you're doing good work, so if that's your preference, it's fine by me. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I edited Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory, the latest revision was that of 21:09, 5 July 2009. I saw the subsections for Archives 97 through 107, which were expanded with links to specific archived discussions, and I decided to expand the rest of the Directory according to the same pattern. That is, a subsection heading in the Directory is a link to an archived page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and entries under it are links to headings (and subheadings and sub-subheadings, as the case may be). A heading which is informative about the contents of its section facilitates searches for keywords.
After I had expanded as many of the subsections of "Miscellaneous Archives" as I could, I decided to do the same for the links listed under "Topical Archives". Therefore, I converted simple links into linked subheadings, according to the pattern for the "Miscellaneous Archives". They were headings of empty subsections, soon to be filled. Unfortunately, in my revision of 06:23, 13 February 2010, the lengths of many of the subsection subheadings interfered with the wikicode for aligning the table of contents at the right-hand side of the page. Therefore, in my revision of 17:32, 13 February 2010, I composed shorter subheadings (most of them including the acronym "MOSA"), and I placed below each of them the corresponding link to an archived page. After that, I began to expand those subsections under "Topical Archives" according to the pattern of "Miscellaneous Archives".
The "Wikipedia talk" namespace has many pages beginning with "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (". Apparently some of those are subpages of "Wikipedia talk" pages, whereas others are talk pages of "Wikipedia" subpages. Recently, I started Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Register and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Register in parallel with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. (At first, I was going to post some of these comments at the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory, but I quickly realized that it is itself a talk page.) All things considered, it seems to be better to keep the page names with parentheses, and to add "manually" a link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on pages where one is desired.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am revising the heading of this section, from "Hi" to "Hi—WT:MOS/x and WT:MOS(x)". -- Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Wavelength[edit]

Meaning back to the version last edited by you. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question which I posted on your talk page. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—Vedda language[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to copy edit the Vedda language article. Taprobanus (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to distinguish it from Venda language, but I did not copy-edit the article. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I revised the heading for informativeness at 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC). -- Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

programma radiophonica[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for presenting me with this wonderful site. :D Much appreciated. Pallida  Mors 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Your expression of gratitude follows my comment here. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS[edit]

Hello, Wavelength. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Humanities page[edit]

Dear Wavelength,

Thank you for the citing of pages on the question of Messiah Criteria. Some minds are so closed. I want to say that at the end of the psalm it says ".. they will come back .." If I say I might be preaching. If one keeps ones mind so closed there is only one way ahead that is open!

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Your expression of thanks is in response to my contributions to section 7.3. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of class action lawsuits[edit]

Does in your opinion WP:PIPE#When not to use suggests to prefer [[GM_Instrument_Cluster_Settlement|GM Instrument Cluster Settlement]] to a simpler [[GM Instrument Cluster Settlement]]? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Somehow I had a reversed view of what I was doing then. I have corrected the article. Thank you for alerting me.
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing headers[edit]

Hi there. I've noticed your efforts to improve searches by altering the titles of questions on the RefDesks. While I applaud your reasons, what you're doing also breaks the links of the people who contributed to the thread, including the OPs, which actually makes things more difficult to use. In my opinion, ease of use by the OP is far more important than any supposed advantages to a hypothetical searcher down the road. We're there to help the questioner, not the search engines. I can't speak for everyone of course, but I know it irritates me when someone alters the title to a section I helped out with because I make frequent use of the My Contributions special page to see if someone has requested additional information or challenged something I thought I knew <g>. If you really feel strongly about what you're doing, please take it to the talk page for discussion. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion there. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 71#Revising headings. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Esperanto, candidate for Nobel Peace Prize in 2008[edit]

The article Esperanto, candidate for Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Please prove notability using reliable sources within 7 days. Contact me or the help desk for any support.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A robust index for the MoSes?[edit]

Hi Wavelength; I wonder whether you're interested in collaborating on this task, if it turns out to be technically feasible. Link Tony (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I have posted messages there. I am interested, but my Wikipedia focus is mostly elsewhere at this time.
-- Wavelength (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected my second message there. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not lecture me[edit]

I don't mind that you edit Arthropod, Spider and Chordate‎ to use your preferred type of dash. But do not lecture me again as you did with "see WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4" and both of these articles - see my user page. IMO WP:DASH is probably the worst waste of time in the whole of MOS, as readers (remember them?) can't tell one dash from another, and the editor time wasted could be in dozens of more productive ways. It seems that I can also lecture rather well too, without repetition at each article. --Philcha (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few points in response.
  • I did not intend a lecturing tone.
  • My edit summaries were not directed to any one editor in particular.
  • Those changes were not about using a preferred type of dash. They were about not using a hyphen after a ly adverb. (For the convenience of other readers of this discussion, I am providing a link and a reference to WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4.)
  • The rule has been thoroughly discussed. (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 106#Hyphens after -ly adverbs (rationalised section))
  • I did not intend a repetitive mode. I provided, in each edit summary, a link and a reference to the rule, for the convenience of anyone looking at a particular difference between two consecutive versions of an article.
  • Without a link and a reference to the rule, some readers might not realize that my changes were according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
  • I saw your user page as you said, but I do not know what information on it you intend to relate to this discussion.
  • Preparing a polite, assertive response to your message has been time-consuming.
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The construct "environmentally more friendly"[edit]

coconut oil

Comparing the number of results for the following searches gives an idea of the unlikeliness of this construct:

http://www.google.co.uk/advanced_search?hl=en

"more environmentally friendly" site:.ac.uk About 13,700 results (0.30 seconds)

"environmentally more friendly" site:.ac.uk 17 results (0.29 seconds)

Trev M ~  10:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message follows my revision to Coconut oil at 03:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Search engine test#General biases: General web search engines (Google, Yahoo web search etc): point 5 of 7 (permanent link here) says the following.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.
For several decades, teachers of the English language have had to compete for time and attention against popular entertainers and other celebrities, many of whom do not know how to inflect an adjectival phrase to produce the comparative form.
"environmentally friendly" --> "environmentally more friendly" or "environmentally friendlier"
"eco-friendly" --> "more eco-friendly" or "eco-friendlier"
The expression "more environmentally friendly" can be correct, but only if the adverb itself is being compared with a different adverb, or if the adjectival phrase is being compared with a different adjectival phrase.
"more environmentally friendly than economically friendly" or "more environmentally than economically friendly"
"more environmentally friendly than economically feasible"
Grammatical rules help users of a language to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll note I searched only .ac.uk for the comparison of usage. Perhaps the large majority of academic users are also using the language outside your recommendations. We are considering a concept "environmentally friendly"; we aren't considering friendliness in a way that is environmental, but a concept that is utterly different to the environment alone or friendliness alone, so the words seem best treated as an inseparable phrase - a Phrasal adjective - and modifiers added outside them. As an editor, I'm constantly seeking better understandability and flow as well as grammatical correctness, and quite frankly this one abruptly terminated the flow, so other than for the sake of debatable academic correctness, is it not best left in the way that will trip the least readers? Trev M ~  19:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even academic users can be deficient in grammar (http://linguisoft.com/).
To the extent that the expression "environmentally friendly" is imprecise because of anthropomorphism, more-precise expressions are "environmentally benign", "environmentally favo(u)rable", "environmentally positive", "environmentally helpful", "environmentally healthful", "environmentally beneficial", "environmentally innocuous", "environmentally harmless", "environmentally salubrious", and "environmentally wholesome".
Someone who has been conditioned to an incorrect usage might hesitate upon first encountering a correct version, but eventually fewer readers would likely be hampered by it.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes academic users can be deficient in grammar: but to the extent that they chose to use the construction I'm suggesting by a factor or almost 1000 to 1?
I also agree that the term is anthropomorphic. A way the language has grown to meet new challenges to comprehension and description.
The noun "environment" has grown one particular meaning which has an adverbial form – the older one didn't have one. "Environmentally friendly" uses this adverbial form to create a phrasal adjective in the same sense as "eco-friendly" (which you agree above expands to "more eco-friendly" presumably because of the hyphen due to the condensation from "ecologically" if not the adverbial form) but because the -ly clarifies the adverbial form of all the terms you give above, indicating the two words are effectively bonded even though there is no hyphen in any: see Phrasal_adjective#Exceptions. Trev M ~  22:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "eco-friendly" is one word, but the expression "environmentally friendly" is two words, and in that two-word unit the adjective "friendly" is the head.
A parse tree shows that a sentence can have several groups of words functioning as units. It does sometimes happen that such a unit is split when it is inflected or modified.
  • "brother-in-law" --> "brothers-in-law"
  • "passerby" --> "passersby"
  • "piper piping" --> "pipers piping"
  • "patent pending" --> "patents pending"
  • "cup of tea" --> "cups of tea"
  • "loaf of bread" --> "loaves of bread"
An infinitive is a unit, but some people allow split infinitives. Also, German has separable verbs, and English has phrasal verbs, which are sometimes separated.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers 2[edit]

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Towers 2. Robofish (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message.—Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing hyphen errors, and a suggestion[edit]

Hi, Wavelength. I've noticed you've been removing some incorrectly placed hyphens lately. The edit that caught my eye was [4]. I followed on your heels and removed three more, in the phrases "less technical", "more complicated", and "more technical" (see [5]). I am guessing from the rapidity of your contributions that you may be using an automated tool to search for such hyphens to be removed; if so, you might consider searching for phrases like these too. —Bkell (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have not been using an automation tool, and I do not wish to do so, but thank you for the suggestion. I have been opening different pages in succession, searching on each page for "ly-", and removing incorrectly placed hyphens. I left unchanged some instances with "by-", "fly-" (as in "fly-past"), "family-" (as in "family-friendly"), "Italy-", and "July-" (as in "July-August" and "July-December"), although the hyphens in the latter instances should be changed to en dashes, according to WP:ENDASH. During the process, I have generally kept the same text on the clipboard unchanged, an edit summary skeleton to which I added edit-specific information such as paragraph numbers (for example, "¶1 of 2") and corrected text.
Please note that the hyphen in "more-technical articles" distinguishes "articles which are more technical" from "more articles which are technical". The same applies to "less" if it might be understood to mean "fewer", although I use "fewer" when I mean "fewer". See Hyphen#Compound modifiers, paragraph 3 (permanent link here) and Fewer vs. less (permanent link here).—Wavelength (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I do things like that too once in a while. (I've done Google searches to find occurrences of "an unique", for example.) I understand your point about potential ambiguity—I had decided there was no ambiguity in "less technical articles", but missed the second interpretation of "more technical articles". The third paragraph of Hyphen#Compound modifiers seems to cite no sources, and in fact one style guide I have available at the moment (the MLA Style Manual) seems to specifically proscribe the hyphen: "3.4.6(b). Do not use a hyphen in a compound adjective beginning with an adverb ending in -ly or with too, very, or much." (More could be interpreted as the comparative form of much.) Do you know of a third-party source that would specifically recommend a hyphen in "more technical articles"? (Also, returning to the article, I fail to see how "well-received speech" and "hard-won fight" are examples of what is being discussed in that paragraph. Do you understand why those examples are included there, or should they be removed?) —Bkell (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Search engines (permanent link here) has a link to OnlineStylebooks.com (a stylebook search engine). You might wish to use that search engine to search for online support for that proscription. Also, you might wish to refer to User:Wavelength/About English/Style guides (permanent link here). If you are unsuccessful in finding support, I might search also.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, subsection 3, point 4 says the following.
    • A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). A few words ending in -ly function as both adjectives and adverbs (a kindly-looking teacher; a kindly provided facility). Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, since they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective. These need careful treatment: Early flowering plants evolved along with sexual reproduction, but Early-flowering plants risk damage from winter frosts; northerly-situated islands.
The two examples which you question seem to have been added gradually in November 2007, apparently because "well" and "hard" can each be both an adjective and an adverb. They are not good examples because it is extremely unlikely that they would be interpreted as adjectives in those phrases, so there is no substantial ambiguity to be resolved be means of hyphenation. I have no objection to the removal of those two examples.
—Wavelength (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merchants of Doubt[edit]

Hi, Would be most grateful if you could kindly add this new article to any of your many and varied lists of books. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; Wasn't Spam[edit]

I reverted an edit you recently made. I meant to revert the edit as I don't think the links belong in the article but I didn't mean to label your edit "link spam." Much of what I revert is link spam and I typed that by habit. Sorry! ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is all right. I accept your apology. Maybe they would be more appropriate for a more specific article.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (name of lawsuit having surname only)[edit]

As to this, I think the casename should only have the person's last name (i.e., Robbins), probably my mistake at the entry, so it should be alpha under R. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I do not know what style(s) lawyers use for deciding that aspect of naming lawsuits, and I could not find a definitive guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal), but it seems to be virtually certain that you are correct. Either you or I can re-rename the lawsuit to "Robbins v. Lower Merion School District" and re-re-alphabetize it under "R" at List of gender equality lawsuits List of class action lawsuits. That would be acceptable to me.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am correcting my message.—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks much. It could be clearer in the wiki guidance, certainly, but the example that is given in MOSLAW (Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation) follows that construct, which is also the construct used by the style guide in US law reviews and courts (the "Blue Book"). Would you be so kind as to address, as I seem to have attracted a wikihounder. Tx. Enjoy the weekend. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tx as well for your help w the main article name change. Never quite got the hang of that. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am revising the title of this section by adding the text in parentheses for informativeness.—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you for the links to WikiProject edit statistics.[edit]

I appreciate you adding external links to toolserver to show edit statistics for each major WikiProject. Thank you for doing that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. It is good to know that those links are appreciated.—Wavelength (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for deletion nomination of Index of environmental sound articles[edit]

I have nominated Index of environmental sound articles, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of environmental sound articles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montmartre funicular[edit]

Thanks for the copy-edits at Montmartre funicular for DYK. Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know much about optoelectronics? AFD would benefit from expert opinion[edit]

Hi, I am attempting to contact editors with greater-than-average knowledge of photoelectronics, at random, judging by contributions to some related articles... actually I can't find many contributors at all who don't appear to be bots or doing minor cleanup! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC could probably do with some expert eyeballs; it appears to be about a fairly large and long-running optoelectronics conference, and google tells me that some serious academics take part as well as some pretty serious companies. But I can't work out just how important or notable it is, or where third party sources might best be found if it is. If you know anything about the area, it'd be appreciated if you found the time to take a look! Thanks, TheGrappler (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not such an expert and I do not know any such expert. You can search for experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics.
You could tag the article with a request for expert attention. Please see Category:Articles needing expert attention.
You might find helpful web resources through http://www.searchenginecolossus.com/ and http://www.dmoz.org/ and http://vark.com/.
If the article is going to be deleted, then probably some of its content could be salvaged and incorporated into the article "Optoelectronics". Important websites could be listed there.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegible header[edit]

Hi. Just a quick fyi. The 3 bulletpoints in your header (Requests about Discussions (Version 3)) are barely legible, because of the colouring (blue text on black background). Please consider toning down the color choices up there (perhaps the screamingly bright yellow, too). There's a handy palette of muted colors at Help:Using colours#Colour generation guide, if that helps. Thank you :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I apologize to all visitors for any inconvenience from my choice of colors. I added those colors when it seemed that people were not reading the requests, and I thought that I should make them more noticeable. I have a preference for the colors of international maritime signal flags. I am removing the codes for yellow and black, and preserving a permanent link to the previous version of this page.—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! If you wanted to retain the colors, a border around the headerbox would be completely fine. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver addition on project pages[edit]

Hi

Just wondered what the purpose was to the inclusion of the toolserver external link on the project pages ? Also - is it possible to change the params to get a longer listing for those projects with more infrequent checks ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in adding them was to provide convenient access to them for WikiProject members. Your second question can probably be answered at User talk:Tim1357, the talk page of the editor who made the tool. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Wavelength. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikiproject electronics[edit]

I don't know if you have watchlisted all your recent additions to Wikiprojects so I though you might appreciate having this discussion brought to your attention. SpinningSpark 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are not on my watchlist, so I thank you for telling me about the discussion.—Wavelength (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist links[edit]

Thanks very much for adding those to projects, they are invaluable. Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better than my solution where I could get the same effect but had to manually compile the list of pages tagged with the project template. NtheP (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles watchlist is really usefull. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thank you for finding it to be useful.—Wavelength (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hyphens[edit]

Thanks for digging up those pages showing the compound items. I'm surprised that the AEC has got it right (neither they nor Australia own the concept, of course). I see other appalling things about one of their pages! (P and p for political, mid-sentence ... you'd think they'd get someone to check it over. WP, at least its best parts, is looking more professional every day.) Still no email function? I've never had an untoward email in all these years, and I place myself in hot situations. Tony (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Your message is in response to my message on this page.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry [about watchlist links][edit]

As-per my edits like this
Sorry my friend i did not mean to make more work for you...There was a talk about the section being below the page footers..So i moved the link up to tools making sure the footer was at the bottom ..i see your right and it should be in its own section called external links...I see that i actually deleted the link sometimes..sorry did not mean to do that (I should have previewed more)...Again sorry!!.Moxy (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and your concern. [I added information to the heading of this section.] Which pages need more work?
—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again sorry..the list of what i edited is here.216.106.109.172 Moxy (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have begun to check the WikiProject pages on that list, and so far every one without a link to an external watchlist is one which I have not edited, so I have not (yet) found one with the link deleted.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You![edit]

Hi Wavelength,

I saw some of your contributions on articles that fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing articles is not in my plans, but thank you for inviting me. [I am correcting the external link in your message.]
—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those contributions were most likely the addition of links to external WikiProjects, or the correction of spelling and punctuation errors. In any case, I have been editing pages in a very wide range of topics, in various series of edits, each series involving many similar edits.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical filter FAC[edit]

The mechanical filter article which you have previously edited and/or reviewed has been nominated as a Featured Article. You may give your opinion on whether you think this article should be promoted to Featured Article status by leaving a comment on the nomination page. SpinningSpark 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I edited that article at 20:50 and 20:52 on 26 November 2009, when it was mentioned in the section Wikipedia:Did you know on the main page.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparsely-spotted stingaree[edit]

Hi Wavelength. While I agree that the hyphens after -ly adverbs should be removed in 99 out of 100 articles, I think this is article is an IAR case. See Talk:Sparsely-spotted stingaree; the sources use them, apparently. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my first edit summary, I mentioned that Google reports about equal numbers of pages with and without an hyphen. With the Wikipedia guideline applied, the weight is in favor of omitting the hyphen.—Wavelength (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but there's now there's an inconsistency between the article title and the body, and that's worse (IMO) than the article's consistent use of the (MOS-breaching) hyphen. I would rather not unilaterally move the article while it's on the Main Page, so do you think you can start a move discussion? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that you've moved the article now. I guess the only thing to do is wait and see if it causes a stir. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wavelength, I am disappointed that you cite raw Google results, when Yzx cited actual reliable sources in support of using the hyphenated form. Ucucha 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my third edit summary, I mentioned that "sparsely" is an adverb. Have you found a source that allows it to be an adjective?
—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 12 sources that omit the hyphen.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, I wish that you would not have initiated a unilateral article move (which I've reverted) without opening a move discussion, when this topic had already been broached in the article's GAN. In any case, here are 12 books, which I believe are as a whole more thoroughly vetted than web links, that use the hyphen:

  • Sharks and Rays of Australia by Peter R. Last and John D. Stevens (2009)
  • Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management: proceedings of the international seminar and workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997 by Sarah L. Fowler, Tim M. Reed, and Frances Dipper (2002)
  • The elasmobranch husbandry manual: captive care of sharks, rays, and their relatives by Mark F. L. Smith (2009)
  • Coastal fishes of Tasmania and Bass Strait by Graham J. Edgar, Peter R. Last, and Malcolm W. Wells (1982)
  • Reef Sharks and Rays of the World by Scott W. Michael (2005)
  • Sea fishes of southern Australia: complete field guide for anglers and divers by Barry Hutchins and Roger Swainston (1986)
  • Sharks & rays by Tony Ayling and Steve Parish (2009)
  • Fishes of Tasmania by P. R. Last, E. O. G. Scott, and F. H. Talbot (1983)
  • Coastal fishes of south-eastern Australia by Rudie Herman Kuiter (1993)
  • Sharks by Andrea Ferrari, Anna Bennett, and Antonella Ferrari (2002)
  • Field guide to trawl fish from temperate waters of Australia by Janice L. May, J. Garrey, and H. Maxwell (1986)
  • Field guide to Australian sharks & rays by R. K. Daley (2002)

The first on that list, Sharks and Rays of Australia, is by far the most authoritative volume on the subject available. In addition, I will note that both the IUCN and the CSIRO use the hyphen, and I would consider those two groups to be the most authoritative on the subject. This is less a grammatical issue than reproducing the typography from the most reliable sources. -- Yzx (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Yzx, perhaps you are still watching this page. I needed many periods of reflection spread over several days, in which to prepare my reply.)
If I was improperly bold in moving the article, I apologize. I was not aware that the article was mentioned at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. For my future guidance on such matters, where is the policy or guideline that limits article moves?
According to http://www.onelook.com/?w=vet&ls=a, the verb vet means "examine carefully". Most of my own books are more than 20 years old, printed at a time when errors in the English language were far less common. Most websites are much newer, and many of them are strewn with various kinds of errors (in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and so forth). However, I am not certain that books generally are examined more carefully than websites.
If the leading authorities on the study of sharks and rays, because of their expertise in that field, have found what they consider to be a valid reason for using the hyphen in this expression, then I might be persuaded to accept that reason as a basis for agreeing with their decision about hyphenation. Otherwise, or until I know of such a reason, I believe that they have simply made an error in the use of the English language, and that someone with expertise in the study of the English language (possibly a copy editor or a linguist) should kindly tell them of their error.
I believe those things even if the hyphenated form is approved or recommended or required by an official authority regulating terminology, such as the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
If the leading authorities on the study of sharks and rays accept that they have made an error in the use of the English language, then they can publish corrective inserts for relevant books which they have published, until they publish the next revisions of those books.
(A similar discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 116#Dispute: Life form capitalization run rampant, with my message there at 20:24, 12 May 2010 [UTC], in which I acknowledged that some people have found what they consider to be a valid reason for capitalization.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming categories[edit]

Hi. It looks like you added {{category redirect}} to a number of "Publicly-funded schools" categories yesterday. I assume this was an error, since you were redirecting them to categories about health care, not about schools, and have undone all these edits. However, apart from this error, you should not use redirects as a way to rename categories; instead, it is strongly preferred that you follow the WP:CFD discussion process. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the error. My concentration was being challenged. I intended to change the hyphenated form to "Publicly funded schools", in harmony with WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, point 4, and Help:Category#Moving and redirecting category pages.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly hedgehog syndrome[edit]

I could not find its resemblance to MS, hence edited the WHS article accordingly. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me.—Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See history of the article about the domesticated hedgehog. Somebody insists on inclusion of MS, I suggest a scientifically justified compromise. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it, and I have no particular position on the matter.—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes you made to an income tax page[edit]

Dear Wavelength, The addition of a link effective gross income to gross income appears to be inappropriate. The former term is one used solely by real estate investors to describe a measure of hypothetical rates of return. The latter term is a technical term used in U.S. income tax law (as cited in the article). The two terms are unrelated other than by happenstance of the word used. Would it be appropriate to delete your reference? Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to delete it, I have no objection.—Wavelength (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans International[edit]

Hi. You added a "see also" section to feature a link to Tiny Hands. Why this link? There are lots of charities for children or orphans, and this seems to be covered by the categories. I removed it for now, but I'm happy to revert if there's a reason to do this. Please leave a note on the article's talk page if there's a particular reason for a "see also" section in this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added to Orphans International a link to Tiny Hands International (THI) because the latter needed links to it, but I accept your removal of the link. I have placed it in three categories, and I have added a link to it from Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which you may wish to revert also, because that organization has various member organizations.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion....[edit]

Intentional (then why?) or by accident? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that deletion until I read your message, so it must have been by accident. I apologize for it, and I do not know how it happened. Maybe I revised my comment there and removed too much without realizing what I was doing. Usually I prepare my comments in a text file before posting them, instead of editing them in the edit window, but I have been following the latter practice a few times recently. I apologize, and I hope to avoid that kind of error in the future.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - it happens to most of us some of the time. It certainly has happened to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding orphaned pages to "see also"[edit]

I think I might have suggested this to you in the past, but don't you think it makes sense to discuss the addition of links to orphaned articles on the talk page of the intended target page? You cannot possibly add every article remotely related to cancer, where more appropriate subarticles might exist. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned something similar at User talk:Wavelength/Archive 2#Orphaned articles. (Some of the following archived sections have additional discussions about orphaned articles.) In such a time-consuming series of edits, I find it most efficient to concentrate on adding links to "See also" sections of the most relevant (often the most specific) articles that I can find. (Anyway, if you scan my recent contributions, you can see that the way in which I managed orphaned articles was not completely one-dimensional.) In the small percentage of cases where the relevancy is found to be very slight, then someone with more knowledge of the subject area might know of one or more articles that are more appropriate. At least, the orphaned article will have been brought to his or her attention.
You have questioned my recent change to the article Cancer. The article Qadir's test begins by saying: "Qadir's test is used for the diagnosis of cancer." What article is more appropriate than one about "diagnosis of cancer"? At this time, Wikipedia does not have an article titled "Diagnosis of cancer", and it does not have a "List of tests for diagnosing cancer". When I enter "diagnosis of cancer" into the search box, I am redirected to Cancer#Diagnosis. That is where I added a link to Qadir's test. According to my understanding, that decision was straightforward and uncontroversial.
(Preparing this reply with attention to both logic and politeness has been time-consuming, occupying one continuous hour.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am revising my first reply.—Wavelength (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]
I neglected to mention that, in my search for articles from which to link to an orphaned article, I frequently consulted an existing category of the latter, or a category that came to mind. Sometimes that process led me to an appropriate article, and sometimes it did not.
If an orphaned article is about a hypothetical house called Any House, on a street called Any Street, in a town called Anytown, but there is no article about Any Street, it seems appropriate to mention Any House in an existing article about Anytown, at least until there is an article about Any Street. This is an example of a missing article of "intermediate" specificity. In this context, Any Street is "intermediate" between Any House and Anytown in specificity. This type of imbalance seems to be not mentioned in Wikipedia:Systemic bias.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am revising my second reply.—Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

hyphen[edit]

Tx for the fix at the targeted killing article. Mea culpa.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Your message follows my revision of the article Targeted killing when it was highlighted in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the revision I had in mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist master[edit]

Hello my friend .... was wondering if you have a chances we will need some external watchlists for some of the Canada projects. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/WikiProjects for a list of all the Canada sub projects.Moxy (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked thoroughly the page to which you linked, and I did not find any new watchlists to add (except "Canada" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, and "Canadian football" to WP:XWA).
The following two links are redirected to the watchlist for Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, so I did not include them. You might wish to arrange for them not to be redirected.
The following watchlists already have links to them from WP:XWT and WP:XWA and the respective WikiProject pages.
Please see Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (topical)#Canada and Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (topical)#Cities.
When I tried editing the web address of a known watchlist (using plus signs for spaces), to access the web address of a "missing" watchlist, I saw a page with no recent changes shown, so I did not include the latter.
For additional help, I recommend that you leave a message at User talk:Tim1357, the talk page of the editor who made the tool which generates the watchlists. A discussion with Tim1357 might be easier if you provide a link (maybe even a permanent link) to this discussion for reference, but please discuss the matter with Tim1357 there. I have added User talk:Tim1357 to my watchlist.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wavelength/Archive_3&oldid=1140761603"