User talk:Chris the speller/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"All of which" to start a sentence ??

Hey, Chris the speller. I love the fact that your user name says you're out there (in here?) to make the word safe for correct spelling. Hurrah! I love correct spelling, but I hate bad spelling more intensely. I regularly proofread the magazine I own and publish (The Sondheim Review), so I make lots of fixes. I also hate bad grammar.

As a relative Wikipedia newbie, I've started making my own contributions. A recent grammar fix--which I thought was minor--to someone else's main article contribution, brought on a near-immediate reversion to the original by its author. This could balloon into something unnecessarily big. It may be too late to prevent that, as my grammar police impulse already feels wounded. (Ow.)

If you look at what is presently section 1.3 of Sam Harris (author)#Islam, you'll note it starts with "All of which lunacy...". To my American ear, this is an incorrect use of the word "which." Except in unusual cases, the pronoun "which," when referring to earlier antecedents, is nearly always used in a clause and not as the subject of a sentence. When the United Kingdom writer on 11 August 2006 restored my correction of "All of this lunacy" to "All of which lunacy," I hesitate to do battle, as perhaps the King's English allows such things, although I doubt it.

So, my question is, Chris the speller: Where can one go to find a Wikipedia-based grammar expert? Have I really erred in my correction? When and how does one decide which fray to enter? Why am I awake at 3:00 am in my time zone talking about grammar? Will Wikipedia soon take over my life? (Rhetorical questions end here.)

Thanks in advance for any pointers. I'm watching your page to follow any replies. :) -- RayBirks 08:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I discovered a page that may get us an answer Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#"All_of_which"_to_start_a_sentence_??. I will be watching there as well. -- RayBirks 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ray, sorry for the delay. I took a few months off Wikipedia. Remember that when it takes over your life. My grammar skills are, I feel, sufficient for Wikipedia editing, so I do not often seek an expert. When in doubt, rummage around the Manual of Style. Correct any grammar that is clearly wrong. If the style grates a little bit, be careful; if nothing else is wrong, it's usually best to let it slide, but if the whole article or paragraph needs copyediting, give it the overhaul. Chris the speller 22:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Chris, I have taken to heart your advice from several month ago, and removed the dates from the disambig. in the articles I have edited. Since nearly all these articles are about politicians, I am using their office; governor, senator, representative, delegate, etc instead. It nearly always works although sometimes requires a state name in front, and very rarely requires another qualifier. So, for instance, there were several James Williams' who were U.S, Representatives. I am calling the one in Delaware "James Williams (Delaware representative)." Do you think "James Williams (DE representative)" would be better, or anything else? What would you do if there were two in one state, as there are for some names in larger states, say (Delaware2 representative)?

Finally, could you assist me in a couple of moves associated with this. I want to move "James Sykes (physician)" to "James Sykes (governor)." And I want to move "Nicholas Van Dyke (1769-1826)" to "Nicholas Van Dyke (senator)." This will standardize the usage. Do you have the knowledge or juice to do this? I don't seem to, as the names have been used before. You help and advice is much appreciated. stilltim 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I like "(Delaware representative)", but not "(DE representative)", as people who live outside the US may not be familiar with postal abbreviations. If there are two in one state, you have to wing it, based on some other distinction, such as "(Delaware representative and judge)" or "(Delaware representative and general)". I will look over the situations for James and Nicholas and get back to you. Chris the speller 23:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Chris, my old friend, How you been? Man, I was thinking about you just yerterday. I wanted to know if you can take a look at my latest article and correct any mispellings. The article is "Puerto Rican women in the military" Cheers Tony the Marine 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Glad to help. Another impressive article. Chris the speller 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Chris. thank you for doing your thing, I like what you did. About Reinaldo Deliz-Santiago I agree with you, he isn't notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia (you know that I would have written about him if otherwise). About the the Revolt against the U.S., I provided a link to the most notable of the revolts which was the Jayuya Uprising (I wrote that one) but, you are right, I will add on when the revolt came to an end (I bet you're goning to read about the revolt (smile)). Cheers Tony the Marine 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Carmen Durnier's husband

Carmen's surnames was Lozano Durnier (In Puerto Rico some people continue to use their fathers and mothers surname). She kept her maiden surnames. Her husband's surname was Dumler, but she preferred her surnames. I have kept in touch with some people in the Women's Military Memorial Committee. They have supplied me with info and clipboards on some of the women I've written about.

I only wish that I had a nurse as good-looking as her in the Marine Corps. Man, she was hot then (she still is alive). If you are wondering why some Puerto Ricans have French and Corsican (Italian) surnames (My ancestors were Corsican0, I invite you to take a look at two short articles that I've written (You can also do your thing), they are French immigration to Puerto Rico and Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico. It is fun interacting with you. Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chris, you know what? After furthur investigation, I found out that Carmen was not a Durnier after all. It was a typo on my behave (I think that I need glasses). Her surname was only Lozano and then after marriage she became Lozano-Dumler. I made all the corrections plus, she was a 2Lt. and not a 1Lt. Thank you for bringing the surname thing to my attention. Cheers! Tony the Marine 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Laromlab

FYI, I have nominated this article for deletion; I noticed you had edited earlier. You can discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laromlab --Aleph-4 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia, Thanks

Chris, thanks for letting me know. I want to share something with you. Sometime ago I wrote the articles about Captains Manuel Rivera, Jr. and Humbert Roque Versace. I realized that their names were not inscribed in Puerto Rico's Memorial dedicated to Puerto Rican fallen soldiers "El Monumento de la Recordacion" and those of Puerto Rican descent. I started a campaign to get this done by writting to the President of the Puerto Rican Senate and finally after many investigations I received this e-mail from the government two days ago:

Dear Tony Santiago:

I would like to notify that I received the confirmation of Mr. José Pagán, Public Affairs Officer, that indeed Captain Manuel Rivera and Captain Humberto Roque complete the requirements to be included in the list of soldiers at the Memorial Monument.

If you have any questions you can contact me at [omitted]. You can also write to my e-mail.

Our office (Tourism) will be coordinating the Memorial Day Event. That means that we will contacting you around the month March.l

Have a nice day,

Adrián J. Pacheco Suárez

According to them, I'll be invited to the unveiling on Memorial Day next May 2007. Pretty cool, don't you think? Tony the Marine 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Chris, how you doing? Could you please take a look at one of articles and do your thing? This is the one Fernando E. Rodriguez Vargas. Thanks a lot buddy. Tony the Marine 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite Welcome

You are quite welcome for the Barnstar. Interestingly enough, I created that stub less than an hour ago. It turns out that while US Navy ships are seemingly well-represented on Wikipedia (hundreds, possibly thousands of US Navy ships articles), the surface has only been scraped. There have been many thousands more ships that have served since the late 1700s, and it seems for every blue link on the list of US navy ships page, there are 5 red ones.

(signing an unsigned comment) Sharkface217 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Chris, for checking out the Major Fernando Rodriguez Vargas article. I just wrote an article on Brigadier General Ruben A. Cubero. Funny thing, I wrote to the Air Force Academy Historian because I wanted some info about the General's eary years and they sent me his home phone number. Hell, it took me two days before I built up the courage to call him. I mean what if he told me "Who the hell you? Why should I give you my personal information?" It turned out that we both had a lot in common and we spoke as if we've known each other for years. Man, that was something. Tony the Marine 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Date formats

Hi Chris- I just have to ask. Are you a native speaker of American English? The date formats you have entered on Cardinal James Freeman's article are not in the Australian/English format- and I have to say that some of us who don't speak American English really notice these sorts of changes and are not pariculalry comfortable with them. You have made an article about an Australian prelate look like it was generated in America, and some of us get very thingy about that. We hate it. It's not the way we speak or write. Is there a wiki policy on this sort of thing? We can't really all be expected to conform to American English. I will have to lead the revolution if this is the case. For the moment, I have reverted the dates to a format Australians are comfortable with. Freman was an Australian (loved Americans, but didn't speak American English). My view is we should tolerate each valid form of English in their appropriate context (eg. American English in biographical articles which refer specifically to Americans, Australian (pretty much British) English in Australian article (especially biographical) etc. etc. What do you think? Cor Unum 09:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(I answered on Cor's talk page) Chris the speller 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris - but we still don't say 19 Novemeber - because it reads to us like "nineteen November" (which we never say or write- and sounds and looks unlike Asutralian English) not "the nineteenth of November" (which we do say and write). I'm still not exactly sure if there is a mutually satidfactory solution - though your change is a compromise (since it puts the day date first). I am saying this again based on my knowledge and experience of English teaching. I once did the TEFLA (Cambridge University) course for teaching English as a foreign langusge (whcih I taught in the former Eastern bloc), so I am pretty clear on these distinctions in the spoken and written language. Any other ideas?

Cor Unum 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(I answered again on Cor's talk page) Chris the speller 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Good job! :-) 16:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs for footballers

Hi, I notice that you change dates (not always consistently from that I can see, so not sure how that works) and opening paragraphs. Opening per WP:DATE is different from the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, so you might want to have a look there and suggest a consistent way forward. Would help for people like me who followed the Player manual of style anyway WikiGull 08:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed this on the project's talk page. As far as I know, my changes have been consistent with each other, but, more importantly, consistent with the guidelines at WP:DATE and WP:MOSBIO. Chris the speller 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Date Formats

You have changed the dates on several articles lately from [[dd Month]] to [[Month dd]] with an edit summary of "date format per WP:DATE". However, WP:DATE states that both forms are acceptable. The Mediawiki software will actually convert linked dates to the reader's specified preference. Most readers won't see a difference in the changes you made. I'd suggest you hold off doing wholesale date updates as some people may react to it in the same manner others react to US & British spelling changes. I, personally, don't see the point in spending time doing something the software handles automatically. But if you want to continue, please use a more appropriate edit summary. -- JLaTondre 12:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult to respond to your complaint without knowing which articles have annoyed you. Please provide a few examples. Please note that WP:DATE states "Elsewhere, either format is acceptable", where "elsewhere" means articles that do not pertain to Ireland, Commonwealth countries, US, etc. And where do you get the information about "Most readers won't see a difference"? I always imagined that most readers are casual users of Wikipedia, who have not set date preferences. Also, what edit summary would be more appropriate? As far as I know, every article that I have changed was at variance with the named guideline. Chris the speller 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not a complaint and I'm not annoyed, but it sure sounds as if you're annoyed by my comment. WP:DATE states "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country". WP:DATE does not specify that it should be in the local format so stating you are making the change in accordance with WP:DATE is not quite correct. It is in accordance with your choice. The particular article is not really relevant as my comment was generic. If you don't like my suggestion, then ignore it. -- JLaTondre 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't generally change date formats in an article where they all adhere to WP:DATE, but where some of them don't, and the others have inconsistent formats ([[dd Month]] and [[Month dd]]), I try to make them consistent, taking into account the nationality of the topic. You will find that all the articles I have edited contained nonstandard and unlinked dates. WP:DATE refers to the section "National varieties of English" in WP:MOS, which states "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." I feel that this means that it also applies to national varieties of date formats, so if there is a hodgepodge, I tend to convert to the format that fits the topic of an article or its prevailing style of spelling. Anyone who reads WP:DATE carefully and examines my edits carefully will see that "date format per WP:DATE" is an accurate edit summary. Thanks for your suggestion, but I plan to ignore it. Happy editing! Chris the speller 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

However, in the two articles that caught my eye, USS Arikara (ATF-98) & USS Atakapa (ATF-149), the dates were consistent and linked. The "National varieties of English" also states "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type...". You're picking and choosing which parts you're compliant with. Anyhow, we're wasting too much time on a minor topic. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Both articles contained "On the 19th", while WP:DATE states: "Do not use ordinal suffixes". OK, back to work! Chris the speller 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stunts...

Sounds like you have it pretty well-covered.  :) The original stub was (I thought) a subject already covered under the "Barnstorming" header. Thanks for letting me know what's up! - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sabato

I'm not sure that your changes got saved. What were they? I'm sorry if I somehow stomped on them. Dfass 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eskaya

Just wonderinng if you saw the in use tag...I was on a major overhaul of the article, and much work that I did was lost because of your edit. Thanks, anyway. --Pinay06 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the reply, and the advice. Actually, after I messaged you, I saw on the history that another editor was doing another major overhaul on my overhaul, like re arranging the sections around. The hard part was I was inputting the citations, and it was hard to do it with the sections all over the place. Anyway, I did not know the tag can be invisible. Maybe when you use the popups or other software huh? Anyway, since you asked, maybe you can go back to the article and spell check again for me. That will be a big help. Thanks again.--Pinay06 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! We will use Eskaya for both plural and singular, so I will check. Is it okey if I have you go over my other articles, too? --Pinay06 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Spellcheck request

Hey Chris! Thanks! You will see my articles in my userpage User:pinay06, not priority, only when you have the time, but on top priority of my list are the currently peer reviewed ones I have contributed: Chocolate Hills, Philippine Tarsier, Philippine Tarsier Foundation. Best regards!--Pinay06 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, saw your edits in the articles. Thanks! BTW, is & acceptable? There are several in the sub-sections in Eskaya. Let me know. --Pinay06 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yehey! Congratulations!!! I'll find you more to do! hehehe! Well, I must say, I'm glad I found you! --Pinay06 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mazal Tov

Congrats on number 10,000! Live long and prosper. Dfass 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to live long, prosper, and edit, edit, edit. To do otherwise would be highly illogical. ;-) Chris the speller 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandugo

Hey Chris! You still editing? I forgot about my own article Sandugo which is currently GA nominee. Please do the honors, too, of checking for misspelling. Maybe also Sandugo Festival? Thanks much! --Pinay06 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

really??? I can't believe in me anymore! hehehe Pinay06

Of course I need your help! Thanks, can you put that in the article talk page? hehehe Thanks and take care! --Pinay06 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence Vandalism Repair

You got that pretty fast, man. Nicely done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.207.39.100 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

additional request

Hi Chris. How are you? Here's an additional list of articles for you: Panaghoy sa Suba, Dagohoy Rebellion, Francisco Dagohoy, Tamblot and Tamblot Uprising. Please do the honors...Thank you. --Pinay06 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I should write your counterpoint, too. You will have better context watching it (than I did) now that you've read about it. It's very patriotic! --Pinay06 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Guest818 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

re: corected speling on the B-17 page...thanck you.

Knot nesesary. Ime happie two asisst with a miner phlaw. Chris the speller 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine Tarsier Foundation

Hey Chris, how's it goin? Please spell check this article. Thank you. --Pinay06 (Talk/Email) 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey...how've you been? Thanks for the spell check. You saved my eyes! Okey, I will check on that "neopian". --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Weather Stations

This is another one from me today. Thanks in advance. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nominating

I am considering nominating the article Ford BA Falcon for Good Article status, so could you please check or review the article and if you can add anything to it please do. Senators 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Dagohoy

Hey Chris, thanks...Since you already did Dagohoy, you might also like to do Dagohoy Rebellion, Tamblot and Tamblot Uprising...Thanks again. --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 03:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The Philippine Barnstar Award
		I hereby give you this Philippine Barnstar Award for your diligent efforts and untiring assistance to my Philippine-related articles. Keep up the good work! --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Weather Stations

This should be due for your "scrutiny" now. Thank you. --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You've gone through this already. My bad. --Pinay06(Talk•Email) 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

Tony the Marine

O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas in 100 languages

No. 1 Medal

I award you, Chris the speller, the very rare "No.1" Medal for your dedication and hard work in Wikipedia - well done! Tony the Marine 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have only awarded two of the rare No. 1 Medals and it is my pleasure to award this one to you for your dedication and hard work in the Pedia. Tkae care Tony the Marine 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you need assistance?

If you need me (Senators) to help you with anything I am glad to, such as reviews, article checks and general assistance. Contact me on my talk page for help. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. For now, the only thing I can think of is reverting vandalism while I'm asleep. ;-) Chris the speller 00:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the spell fix. Ironstove 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I gave it another shot, too. Chris the speller 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Enjoy this and this --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 05:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

wow

you fixed my spelling.... Blueaster 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

Sorry about that editing comment, I was just surprised those problems hadn't been edited out yet. I'll read the articles. Thanks!Silence(water) 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Thanks for the spelling corrections. But I think now we could use your help against those Vandals who will want to REVERT - for partison reasons.

If you can help - Great!!! --Ludvikus 16:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Haghpat Monastery

I took care of Haghpat Monastery already. Thanks for pointing it out. WordPerfect spellcheck let "Monastary" slip by. House of Scandal 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No need for thanks. My respect goes to anyone who avoids Word, as I do. I caught it by using the "Live spellcheck" wikipedia tool, not much thought needed for that. Chris the speller 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

WW 1 Casualties

Thanks for the corrction, Its time to hit the hay!--Woogie10w 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I'll watch everything; take a break! Chris the speller 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Chris the speller has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS Texas (BB-35), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lizard Union

Hello Chris, thank you for spell-checking Lizard Union. Unfortunately this wikipedia needs a whole lot more than just spell-checking. Look at the Lysy version now. If you are interested in real history and not only wikipedia versions, you might want to take a look at: Discussion: Lizard Union Labbas 4 January 2007

I am not generally drawn to edit wars, and am not qualified to help in this one, except to say that the article seems to need references. The right references would probably settle any disputes. Also, you might find other editors more likely to help if you register and sign in. Happy editing! Chris the speller 05:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added the website with the names of the members of the Eidechsenbund to the other references under External links Discussion: Lizard Union. That is just for you information, if you are interested in true history. Happy spellchecking! Labbas 5 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.31.82 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Eskaya

Hi Chris. We are back to Eskaya. LoL. There was some work done on the article, and I just submitted it for peer review. I forgot there might be some spelling errors. Please do me the honors. Thank you. And how've you been? Was Santa nice to you?--Pinay (talk•email) 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Santa was good to me. Still trying to figure out why it is that when he's good to me my bank account goes down correspondingly. I proofread it, only 1 word misspelled, so I changed hyphens to endashes in number ranges. Good work! Chris the speller 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, kind man. May your tribe increase! Lol! Hope the peer review will see more than you did! - kidding. --Pinay (talk•email) 06:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sp

Thanks for spelling corrections, they are nicer than criticizing bad English... Cheers ! Lapaz 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to help anyone who is genuinely trying to improve wikipedia. Chris the speller 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

spellchecks

Hi Chris, here's more for you: Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary, List of people of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary, Paring Bol-anon and St. Genevieve Church. Thank you. --Pinay (talk•email) 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Genevieve Church

I was not sure about LeBreton's book; it was missing quotes at the end, and I made them italics, as "volume" indicates a book, not a chapter. That sentence is might lumpy, and might be better with "Dominique" moved before "old Jupiter". Chris the speller 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me check on this Chris. Thank you, as always. --Pinay (talk•email) 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The excerpt says, "Both the pioneer Creole priest of Louisiana, classical poet, missionary among the Choctaw Indians, and his happy-go-lucky brother, "old Jupiter in a black blanket," as Mrs. Dagmar Renshaw LeBreton styles him in her splendid volume Chaht a-Ima — Dominique, who was a master of lyric poetry — made Bonfouca their haunt."

Roger Baudier of CAS (see Ref 2) appears to have made the actual quote from LeBreton's Chaht a-Ima rather than LeBreton herself. From what it appears, LeBreton simply called Dominique "old Jupiter in a black blanket." There is certainly lumptiness of the sentence of Baudier but not in the way language is spoken in the southern part of Louisiana. Also keep in mind, the "creoles (locals), like the French Cajuns, has a way with words (and mighty proud of it!) that is only acceptable at home and no place else. Where else in the world would you hear someone ask you how you're doing with, "Where you at?" except in the "city that care forgot," New Orleans. --ChicogoN 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

posted from User talk:Pinay06--Pinay (talk•email) 10:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Will relay the message to User:ChicogoN, Chris. Thank you...--Pinay (talk•email) 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In use

Chris, please check if an article is preceded by a coloured 'In use' box before editing it. This will help avoid edit conflicts. Thanks Perezkelly 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I answered on Perzkelly's page. Strangely enough, a collision on the same article as the smashup I had with Pinay06 last month! What are the odds? Chris the speller 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...surprise comes in "colored boxes"! Well, it brought us together, so...--Pinay (talk•email) 06:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, no worries. Thanks for the spelling.- PerezkellyPerez posted from Perezkelly talk - --Pinay (talk•email) 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

facilitate

Hits me - i could have sworn its "faciliate". Well, I'm german native, so thanks for improving my english ;-) --Echosmoke 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to help. Please let me know if you have any questions or doubts about any use of English in Wikipedia. Chris the speller 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Georges de Feure

Thanks a bunch for having edited the de Feure article. And that was pretty damn quick too! Moumine 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed it. Chris the speller 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Divine Word Seminary

Chris, pls spell check. Thank you. --Pinay (talk•email) 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again...what more do I say? --Pinay (talk•email) 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You say "Wow! You even fixed the spelling of the German quote!" (the small one; the longer one in the notes section could use some help as well, (probably: soliten->sollten, wean->wenn, Uniuersitaeten->Universitaeten), but I am not as sure about it. Chris the speller 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		Chris, for fixing all the spelling mistakes, I award the Minor Barnstar. Keep up the good work! Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. If my memory is accurate, there is already one in the archive of my talk page. Now I have a spare, or one for my desktop and one for my laptop ;-)   Chris the speller 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary

Much work has been done on this lately, Chris. Please spell check. Thanks. --Pinay (talk•email) 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maraming Salamat, Muchas Gracias! Thank you! --Pinay (talk•email) 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't much room for improvement. Glad to help. Chris the speller 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

March for Life

Thanks for the spell check. I'll remember this "occurence" in the future. :-) Bill D 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surrrre it won't occurrrrr again. Chris the speller 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C.

Please see my note at Talk:Cardiff City F.C.#My_revert - sorry to revert over your addition, but it looked like I was the only one that noticed the vandalism. Thanks. --EarthPerson 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Fixing the spelling is easily done twice, especially using the live spellcheck tool. Chris the speller 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to Nick Dyer

Hi Chris, your reversions of my edits to Nick Dyer by User:Inspire62 were actually my reversions of that user's vandalism of a biography of a cricketer. This user (and the same vandalism from IP address User:88.111.25.84 has repeatedly changed the page to the crap about some nice tall kid from Nottingham. I have reverted the page. Again. For the third time in the past couple of hours. I have placed a note on his talkpage suggesting that he make his own page if he thinks he's worthy of a bio; I don't agree that he is, mind you. Regards, Flyguy649 19:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. No problem. I assumed it was an error, which is why I left you the note; I hope it wan't too snippy. As I'm sure you know, it's incredibly frustrating reverting the same crap over and over. Especially since the Nottingham Nick apparently wanted his own page and apparently refused to read up on how to make a new page. Anyway, enough for now. And thanks very much for the links you left... I'm going to need them sooner or later! Take care, Flyguy649 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my refering->referring typo, I appreciate it. Manxruler 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris

Please spell-check Arnold Zamora and Chorus Paulinus for me? Thanks. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Arnold Zamora - Thanks as always. I will remember. (fixed: Respect other people's views!) Most likely, you will find exactly the same errors in Chorus Paulinus. I just know it. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the Loboc Children's Choir, they were the interpreter or singer of "On Angels Wings"...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A million million thanks...Till next! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

José Roel Lungay

Sorry, I know it's Sunday, but here's more for you! Also List of songs penned by J. Roel Lungay. Thanks much! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thank you for correcting all my spelling mistakes, it must be annoing.

I think you mean annoying. ;-) That's OK. Chris the speller 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New vandalism templates

Hi, first of all I wanted to thank you for you help on vandal patrol :). I don't know if you are aware of it, but starting today, there are new unified user warnings in place. The idea behind this rewamp was, among other things, to add some consistency to their look and wording. Check them out at WP:UTM! You can of course continue to use the old test templates, but please give a shot of our shiny new {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-delete1}}. The numbering is still 1 to 4. I hope you'll appreciate them! Happy vandal fighting! -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already started using them. Chris the speller 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Chris, thanks for the spell check of LSm. I must have a mental block about proceeds, I've misspelled it more than once. Bob Plaag 05:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

publically/ publicly

I note that you changed the former to the latter in the article at Kelvin MacKenzie. To be honest, I can't really say I feel strongly about the issue, however the Oxford English Dictionary sees both as acceptable, and I would say that publically is still in reasonably wide public use- not quite archaic yet. I'd say that it's more a matter of personal taste than a matter of spelling, but as I said, it's not something I'll lose any sleep over. Good work on the spellchecking you do, however! Robotforaday 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hatnotes on biographical articles

Hi Chris, I just saw your reply at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes#The_case_for_hatnotes. Thanks for your support!

This issue seems to pop up every month or two on my talk page, and I sometimes despair at how few editors seem to add hatnotes to biographical articles (some even remove them! aaargh!). So was wondering whether you might be intersted in working togerher on some guidance on this.

I'm not sure whether it shoud be at WP:HATNOTE, WP:MOSBIO, WP:DAB, or at a new page, but I think it might be useful to set out the something which explains why biographical articles need hatnotes to assist the reader.

Would you be intersted? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick check

Chris, these four are currently being nominated for WP:GA: - can u just do a quick check, in case? thanks much!
Eskaya
Chocolate Hills
Philippine Tarsier Foundation
Philippine Tarsier--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries that wanted Chris to leave so bad they issued him a passport: US

That's great!! :-) Bill D 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

if you dont have anything special to do please wikify The graaf sisters article/matrix17

I answered on matrix17's talk page. LOVELY PICTURES on the external links, by the way. Chris the speller 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually on PROD not AfD... The problem is no assertion per WP:MUSIC and lack of sources. I've given a shout on the Village Pump to see if I can get someone to help out with these articles who actually speaks Swedish because I'm starting to suspect that these people may be notable, there just are not any English sources that actually back that up.--Isotope23 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wikify the graaf sisters article. then the article will stay tough the only thing needed is for it to be wikifyed,) and yes the sisters are hoooot;);P/matrix17

Your Mystical Awareness

Chris, you found my mis-spell almost instantly! How you do that? Thanks Mayagaia 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explain- and for keeping wiki cleaned up. That software seems a small step towards closing the gap between Cybernetics and cognition so eventually humans will not need any memory and can spend all their conscious energy in contemplation of the divine.

Kiarostami

Hi Chris!

Just to welcome you and thank you for your helps.Sangak 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Francis Escudero

Hey there, Chris. Can you do the honor of cleaning up the future Philippine President's page? LoL! Thanks. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. You just made him President of the Philippines! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Links

I really don't have anything to say except I'm sorry. Thanks for not biting me. --Umalee 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rosalina

Hi Chris, trouble is when you're on NP patrol you see so many one-line articles without much notability. If you're going to expand this one I'll gladly remove the CSD tag. Cheers, EliminatorJR 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD tag removed! EliminatorJR 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kraton

Hi saw you wander across my watch list in the kraton disambig - thanks for that - suspect i should have done it a long time ago since the problems i had with the polymer guys... thanks again SatuSuro 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry hadnt realise there were so many! SatuSuro 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a relief - nah those two - my favourite subjects will get to them later... SatuSuro 23:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wall of Honor

Because of your dedication and your excellent work in Wikipedia, I have inducted you to my "Wall of Honor" Tony the Marine 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wall of Honor
Chris the speller

LoPbN

Dale, a disambig page

I subdivided the Dala - Dale & Dalr - Daly secns of List of people by name: Daa-Dam. I'll comment soon on your other questions.
--Jerzy•t 11:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

_ _ OK, yr talking abt Dale, Dale (origin), Dale (part of place name) but not Dale (name), Dale (given name), nor List of people named Dale, AFAI can see. And you created Dale (surname) subsequently. You also mention MoS:DP NTBCW, a funky name for WP:MOSDAB. And i see that your Special:Allpages lk has something in the half-thousand ballpark of relevant articles and Rdrs. I didn't track down that WP:MOSDAB talk archive.
_ _ I continue unconvinced that Dab or Dab-style or list pages for people with a common given-name are encyclopedic; when i find one (maybe even the 4-or-so-name sub-list you removed) cluttering a Dab, i generally dump it onto a tk page with a note deprecating its worth, on the theory that preserving trash to save the labor of fools who would waste energy recreated it or hunting it down in the history, is an efficiency. But i don't think WP should try to substitute for either baby-name books or "List of people who make me cool by sharing my name".
_ _ If you don't get how to subdivide sections, i blame either my deficiencies as a documenter (minor-league-pathologically self-defeating compulsiveness) or my resulting tendency to put my efforts elsewhere. Don't apologize if you don't learn how; we can't really be Experts on Everything, and it's one of my specialties, tho i welcome anyone's teaching themselves how, or trying it and leaving it to others (maybe me) to clean up after. And those who get cleaned up after may gain insight by looking at the diffs for the cleanup.
_ _ I could do my next large subdivision in stages, with unnecessary saves to in effect document the conditions that each division of a section remedies (or even revert the one i did for Dal..., and recapitulate the process, if another good opportunity doesn't come along soon) to provide an implicit tutorial. The hope of it being useful to you would be enuf reason to do so, and if you ended up complementing my deficiencies by leveraging your review of it into a commentary on the process, for Talk:List of people by name/Intra-page structure that would be super tho far from expected. Hmm, a plan is shaping up here, and when i carry it out, i'll alert those interested on that tk pg, & invite anyone to document for others the principles buried in my harmless, albeit pathetic, drudgehood.
_ _ If i've missed an implicit question, ask me again.
--Jerzy•t 20:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You might also mention that it seems to work well for such large bio Dab pages to be organized into sections for bios w/ related cause of notability, which is distinctly not what LoPbN is designed to deal with.
--Jerzy•t 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Section hierarchies

"People named ..."

_ _ I applaud your interest and perception, reflected in your addition of "People named ..." into a LoPbN heading. I'd have left it as it was, and i think you've shown that you'll grasp my reasoning (whether or not we end up agreeing).
_ _ You may have noticed the phenomenon/design-decision that i call a "level jam", in the sense of two or more levels of the logical hierarchy being jammed into one actual section level. The theoretical structure there is

• D
  • Da
    • Dal
      • Dale
        • Daley
          • People named Daley
            • Daley as surname
              • Daley as whole surname
                • Daley, A
                • Daley, B
                • ... etc.

(We've split the logical level below Da into two physical levels, implemented in this case by the Daa-Dam page and the Dal section within it; also, with Daley as whole surname, the logical "Daley, B" etc. are physically unneeded (so far) and the sections "Daley, B-J" and "Daley, L-W" get what would logically be within those.)
_ _ The level jam is (for now) feasible bcz the entries belonging under each of "Daley", "People named Daley", "Daley as surname", and "Daley as whole surname" are the same in each case. I have one clear reason, and maybe a couple of vaguer ones, for choosing, as title for the physical level (section), the name of the highest of the jammed-together levels:

1. For those who display the ToC (the right choice for navigating LoPbN pages), "Daley" clearly parallels its siblings, Dalec, Dalen, and (to a lesser extent, "People named Dale" -- AKA "[just plain] Dale" or "Dale¶", if you will). It may take practice, but my eye scans ToCs looking for deviations from that pattern, which usually means a rightly named heading miscoded so that it ends up at the wrong level.
2. IMO, "Daley" "needs to make no apology" for being used in its usual sense "the name Daley" rather than in LoPbN's usual broad sense "Daley and anything that begins with it". (Committing in theory to that broad sense was decided on when LoPbN exceeded 26 name-bearing pages, and reaffirmed by me, in passing up the chance to shift to the design choice of, e.g., "List of people by name: Hal..."; the constructions "Name Daley" and "People named Daley" are ongoing apologies for that design decision.) Using the apologetic title where "Daley" will do draws attention to the apparently nonexistent people surnamed Daleyman or Daley-Bailey or the nonexistent rap DJ, Daley Fixx (two-word given name, no surname involved).
3. Besides their ability to delay the need for subdividing a page (when the number of levels in the ToC exceeds 5), level jams are IMO commended by the likelihood that they'll be overlooked by everyone but LoPbN editors who undertake subdivisions, and AFAI can see even by most of those. Those who like laws, sausages, and LoPbN listings shouldn't have to watch them being made: even setting aside the kind of names that could force implementation of the jammed levels, the concept of jamming levels is complex and slippery enough to justify generally avoiding unnecessarily hinting at its existence in practice.

On the other hand, it's lonely out here on the fringes of the LoPbN design, and i'm quite pleased that there's someone thinking about the issues. I'd be pleased to hear your reaction, whether agreeing or disagreeing. And thanks for getting involved enough for the question to arise. --Jerzy•t 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, i had already forgotten our previous, immediately preceding discussion on this page! I should look at the history of the Dal page before saying any more!
--Jerzy•t 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nice work on the subdivision of List of people by name: Gim-Giz! I see careful thought at work.
  --Jerzy•t 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  
• I've just made a mess by overriding you in an Ed Conf on List of people by name: Gim-Giz; i've gotta run, but i'll take responsibility to merge the two conflict edits in the next 12 hours. After that, i'd be grateful for an alpha check. ARRGH!
  --Jerzy•t 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  
• In case you haven't experienced it before, see Wikipedia:Edit conflict. I've now restored your Giordano additions that i clobbered, fixed my temp heading "Gion - Gion" [sic!], and in a few cases done lo-res trmnlgy on your entries.

I started adding Gion entries, & some Gior ones, with the thot that my merging Gio and Gip might be a waste, if they would need splitting back. Together, your and my Giordano entries outstrip the ToC depth capacity, and i haven't decided yet when to subdivide the Gim-Giz pg into Gim-Giq, Gir, and Gis-Giz pgs: if i'm quick implementing the new, more editor-friendly division support, this will be an early page-division demonstrating it; if not, i may delay the pg subdivision, rather than falling back on the bad-old system.

In the meantime, my eyes have glazed over from manual alph checking, and a run on this page is likely to be valuable in cleaning up. Thanks again,
--Jerzy•t 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Level Jams and Level Straddles

(Off topic:

Ebb and flow in those with airs:

Popes and patriarchs everywhere,

And monks, and monarchs and their heirs:

I've linked a lot today!

But colleagues now seem scared of change,

And act as if i edit strange.

Hey! Hist'ry page shows loss or gain

In edits anyway.

But this has gone too far already, and i'm not evey sure you've caught the tune.
)
_ _ Looking now List of people by name: Hoa-Hoe, i had thot you were describing a level jam such as i mention above (something i practice cautiously, and even so with mental reservations) rather than what i've thot ... a lot? ... no, but frequently (tho briefly, except very early on) and strongly. My ready example is based on an old Reader's Digest joke about the student who's disappointed that encyclopedia volumes from the school library don't circulate, because he wants to learn HOW to HUG -- but i'll call the approach a level straddle now that the need for a name arises. And while i think of the more familiar level jams as mild cheating, these straddles worry me much more; i have invariably avoided them. But i find my hard line about them softening as i try to state my objections.
_ _ I think the way to state my misgivings is this: navigation in the form of where the eye rests, or rather the shrinking range it flits within, is much more efficient where there are effective signposts. If you're familiar with the computer science concepts of binary and linear searches, their human-executed equivalents are both insufficient as methods for finding the bio you want in the LoPbN structure. (If you'd like a feel for that, exaggerating the problem the problem helps: take a trip down memory lane to January 2004, when List of people by name: Ma was not an index-only page with a couple of dozen pages sprawling out over three levels below it in the tree, but a 55 K-byte list with something over 500 entries and no sections. Even despite the intervening growth (the Marti... names, e.g., numbered 49 then, and 182 now, by my quick counts), i presume you find

• drilling down from Ma a page or three, then glancing thru the top-level section headings, and the sub-headings of one 2nd-level section, and perhaps those of one child-section per generation for a total of perhaps as many as 5 generations, before lking to the appropriate section,

to fall short of effortlessness but still be simpler, probably quicker and less subject to the occasional frustration of wasted effort due to momentary confusions between, e.g., Holt... and Hotl... and infinitely less boring, compared to

• scrolling thru about 10 (on average) of 20 screenfuls of about 25 entries each, looking probably at the last name (if you are disciplined) or the last few,

before doing similar searches among one screenful of entries. While i don't mean to suggest that straddled sections are equivalent to no structure, i do think that the structure of your variation is less intuitive and more error prone, and that these will badly serve users by slowing them down somewhat and occasionally leave them somewhat confused and/or frustrated -- even if these effects are not consciously noted by the users affected. I also am concerned that the logic that justifies what i'll call the "narrow-scoped center" subsection of Hob actually commends changes nearby, in this case the likelihood that the Ho page does not need subdivision at the same points as at present: Hobb... is like Hoff..., Holm..., and Howard, so at some phase in the growth of the list (i have no confidence that it's a phase that's over) the appropriate structure of a single Ho page would be something like

• People name Ho
• Hoa - Hobbe
• Hobbs
  • (Hobbs subsections)
• Hobby - Hoffe
• Hoffm
  • (Hoffm subsections)
• Hoffn - Holmb
• Holme
  • (Holme subsections)
• Holmg-Hov
• People named How
• Howa
  • (Howa subsections)
• Howe - Hoz

Applied to the degree it is in your sample, i think this scheme disrupts the orderly process of stepping down one level per letter of the name being sought, and applied to its logical conclusion, i think it loses that concept completely, leaving users to search for the section they need either sequentially or largely in a rough approximation of binary search (i.e., homing in by hit-and-miss). (My impression is that most encyclopedias stick to volumes covering a letter of the alphabet or a range of single letters, suggesting to me that the exceptions either admire the appearance of volumes of uniform thickness, or save expense by not requiring their binderies to adapt to differing sizes.)
_ _ I don't want to claim that my intuition in this is necessarily reliable, but i do think its notions need to be addressed, perhaps by experiment. I think that if i haven't convinced you, you should leave Hoa - Hoe as a sample and work toward a presentation of the scheme, including clearly its full scope, on one of the Talk:LoPbN group of pages, where more eyeballs can weigh the two schemes against each other. I think implementing straddles in a consistent fashion would affect most LoPbN tree pages, probably entailing more widely varying page titles and a less intuitive and otherwise user-friendly scheme than what i'm about to implement: you've got a big change in mind. --Jerzy•t 07:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Automated alphabetical-order checking

Sounds like an excellent tool. Suggestions:

1. Start an RC patrol, perhaps single-handedly, based not on Recent changes, but on Related Changes: bookmark [1] and give your attention to those with size changes above a threshold that you determine by experimentation (probably excluding en masse the currently voluminous, and apparently very careful, entry-per-edit additions by User:Slyguy).
2. Also make a depth-first left-to-right tour (i.e., an alpha-order one) thru the entire LoPbN tree (using just the lks in the "Access to rest of list" boxes, at least once and maybe periodically.

$$$ I have already done all of "R" and have started on "S". Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Another place that might be interesting to apply it is on Cat pages that are descendants of Category:People; it might be worth considering smartening it up enough to distinguish in many cases among
   1. the typos in the Cat piping (or {{DEFAULTSORT}} tags)

$$$ Yes, it has already caught two cases of "skaky typing in the piping". Should I change my username to Chris the rhymer? Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. failure to reorder the name in the piping
   2. the people whose surnames really come before their given names (like Mao Tse-tung)

   For instance, Irwin Shaw does not belong on the Irw... page where Steve Irwin belongs, and the number of (surname-)Irwin entries there makes it likely, without information except counts of Irwin-near-the-end titles, that Irwin is a European-derived name and that instances where it is at the start of a title are probably Euro-culture people with Irwin as given name (and thus deserve a strong presumption of a bad Cat pipe). In contrast, Irwit Lee (unless in the middle of the Irwins, and therefore a person named Irwit but piped with the misspelling Irwin) may be the only Cat-entry with Irwit in any position, and thus is much less certain to be a Euro-name that should have been inverted (and thus perhaps best left to many eyeballs of your colleagues to evaluate and correct).

2. Consider whether your ext-ed is smart enuf to be adapted to dealing with lists of monarchs and hierarchs (see e.g. the Benedicts, Felipe or Philip or Phillips, Georges, Friedrich or Fredericks, Johns, Piuses, Louises, Constant/Constantines), whose blunt-instrument automated sortings i corrected by hand, so that e.g. John IX did not immediately follow John IV, and occupants of the same throne are closer to each other than those with the same Roman numeral on other thrones. I was satisfied with a barely common-sense scheme that may deserve replacement with one that i continue to despair to specify.

--Jerzy•t 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

$$$ When I see Rupert of Seville and Rupert XXIV, I ignore them, for now. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

_ _ I'm not really surprised at how many alph errors your tool is finding, tho i certainly wasn't thinking about how many i missed, along with the ones that i occasionally fix. This is a very fine advance! Thank you for it.

$$$ I am surprised there are not more. You and Slyguy may congratulate yourselves. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

_ _ There are three categories of non-English-alphabet characters that you may want to think about (if only to say "My, that's interesting", and set them on your mental knick-knack shelf):

1. Those that would be English letters but for the presence of a diacritical-mark: é ö ñ Ł are a good sampling; these i treat, without substantial objections, as if they were identical to the corresponding English letter.

$$$ The tool already handles most of these, and more are added as I run across them. However, some (like the Polish letters) do not survive the cut-and-paste into my editor, so I eyeball them and keep on truckin'. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Foreign letters that have a standard two-letter English transliteration: ß; Œ œ; Æ æ; Þ þ (upper and lower case thorn). These correspond to ss, Oe, oe, Ae, ae, Th, and th, respectively.

$$$ A planned enhancement will take care of these, but there have been rather few. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. • I exclude from this list the three German umlauted vowels, tho they are often transliterated as the naked vowel followed by "e": IMO duplicate entries for these are a reasonably good idea, tho this aspect is beyond the scope of your tool.

$$$ Yes, I saw this with Ernst Roehm, no problem. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. • Just for the record, i understand that

     Old English thorn was sometimes the "th" in "that" and sometimes the th in "thin" (but i suspect it may have had both sound within the same year only during transitional periods),

     the supposed Y in expressions like "Ye olde curiosity shoppe" is a late typographical convention for thorn, and

     thus "ye" is correctly pronounced like "yee", for the ye in "ye scribes and Pharisees", but like "the" or "thee" in those "ye olde ..." usages.

   • Again just for the record, IJ and ij are the upper and lower case forms of a single Dutch letter, as in IJsselmeer, but IMO reflecting that knowledge in our sorting of names would be sheer folly, and i am wasting no time considering whether it could make any visible difference.
2. The modern Icelandic and Old English letter Eth ("also spelt edh or eð" per WP), Ð and ð. These stand out for the following reasons:
   1. In the case of Icelandic, D and d seem to be common transliterations, tho Dh and dh are more logical based on my understanding of the sounds (the Th sound of English "there", at least approximately), and Th and th are consistent with English orthography and look more natural in English, at the cost of a higher risk of being mispronounced like the "th" of "think". (I think i stated on the LoPbN root page that LoPbN alph reflects the Dh transliteration (FWIW).)
   2. I may have misled myself in thinking that Old English words (other than edh) tend to be transliterated with the Dh version; perhaps that actually reflects Manx names like the Moddey Dhoo.
   3. Uppercase Eth (in contrast to its lowercase partner!) is (at least practically) indistinguishable in the fonts i've seen from the Vietnamese letter Đ (lowercase version đ), whose sound value i don't know. (In contrast to Icelandic, tho, the VN letters seem to be very seldom used within English text.)

Bottom line? If you're a programming wiz and have the interest, you may see directions for refinement of your tool; if you're an aggressive researcher, you may want to check and/or flesh out my understandings above. In case you have some such interest, here's an incomplete list of LoPbN appearances of, mostly, the upper and lower Eth characters:

• Ae: Ælfric, Æthelwold
• Broa-Brov: Bróðir of Man
• Eg: Sigurður Eggerz
• Ei-Ej: *Eiður Guðjohnsen
• Gu: Eiður Smári Guðjonsen, Björk Guðmundsdóttir
• Hr: Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson, Hermann Hreiðarsson
• Oa-Ok: Oddsson, Davíð
• Sia-Sik Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson
• Thon-Thoz: Jón Þorláksson, Björn Þórdharson, Björn Þórðarson

_ _ Finally, i've worked over some of your recent work; probably you already realize that absence of "Top" near your latest edit of a page on your "My contributions" page indicates someone haveing edited that page since you. Don't hesitate to ask questions, where my summaries leave you guessing.
--Jerzy•t 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

$$$ If you see me creating a trail of mistakes, let me know. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Taking up your offer: I'm guessing the bullet headings at List of people by name: Caa-Cal are immaterial to your alpha-tool's operation. I tried to do a good job of mergin in names from Calva to the end, but a check by you would be a great thing.

$$$ Right, the bullet headings do no harm; I checked the page, and there were only a few to fix. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Does your tool make sure entries are in the correct alpha relationship to the headings?!

$$$ No, not at this time, but that check seems feasible to add in the near future. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Did you ask abt bullet hdgs? The edit box tool is a big help, and while i'm neglecting such pages relative to others, i foresee possibly resuming bullet-hdg maint before Slyguy finishes. (Also perhaps reducing the space cost slightly by collapsing single-entry bullet sections into a single line rather than two. We'll see. And finally, thinking abt templatizing them so that they do more self-reformating when subdivision occurs.

--Jerzy•t 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

$$$ No, I didn't ask about bullet headings, I'm still chewing on the reading assignments you've already provided. Chris the speller 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

... and its enhancements

_ _ Congratulations again on your worthwhile tool-making efforts -- in particular, your addition of what in retrospect seems like a natural extension, counting the sections' entries.
_ _ I suggest you add a new section on Talk:List of people by name/Intra-page structure to list pages or even sections overdue for section-subdivision, each as an appropriate lk, to ease getting there. I can't decide whether an alpha list or an oldest-first list is more likely to work well; in fact, the answer may well depend on the work-to-worker ratio. Hmmm. An alpha list makes it convenient for people to subdivide a page in the course of doing other work on the same page (whether or not the other work is sequential by page. What do you think of entries in alpha order, each preceded on its line by a time stamp (~~~~~, that's five tildes) to aid the alternate approach of looking for repeatedly neglected ones? I can also picture multiple lists implemented as a single template, each list showing only the pages added before a certain date; editing the template to remove the sections just subdivided would result in their disappearance from all the versions of the list.
_ _ There should also be a section on the same talk page for talking abt issues of subdivision-produced structure that arise, so new and experienced subdividers can learn broad principles from discussion of specific differences of approach. I flatter myself and the other experienced subdividers with the thot that at least for a while most of the enlightenment will flow from experienced to newer ones, but doubtless at some point many eyeballs will produce new, better approaches to some aspects of subdivision. Someone (a better documenter than i) should refactor, summarize, and formalize the accumulated wisdom.
_ _ (Those are too many ideas to tackle at once; best to start with a simple list & consider these ideas only if and when they seem likely to address real problems that arise.)
_ _ As to Bennet & Bennett, i have three sets of comments: how i'd have edited the section if i'd taken note of it and given it the time; re your edit, and looking beyond that edit in a slightly larger context.

1. As you found it, the headings deserved tweaking:
   • Between === Benne === on one hand and ====== Bennett, A-E ====== and its siblings on the other, there was "elbow room" left, that is, capability of "===="-level and "====="-level hdgs intervening.
   • First, even if a hdg were to exist where that elbow room now is (other than as a comment for suggesting markup for future use), i would with my present opinions have implemented ==== Bennett ==== instead of ===== People named Bennett =====.
   • It's a fair guess that the ===== People named Bennett ===== hdg was mine, but, second, it was indeed unnecessary when you found it: While i (or whoever) probably felt a little awkward about subdividing the people with that surname, without having yet established a heading for one of those two possible headings that would mention "Bennett" and embrace all the existing Bennetts, i'm now of the opinion that one should focus on the role of a heading in restricting the scope of its section only as far as necessary, that is, just far enough to exclude the names in the sibling sections, and be willing to trust the users' common sense to "smooth the transition" down to sections whose content is implicitly or (in the case of these given-name ranges within the Bennets) explicitly narrower than the (Benne) hdg that includes them all.
2. Your addition of the people surnamed Bennet actually called for a "People named Bennet" secn hdg, which i've added according to the design principles i've been following. The logic of those principles is largely experience with the alternatives: it would be perfectly consistent to say

   (Up to about 25) people with Xyz as surname go directly under that hdg, and people with longer surnames that begin that way get subhdgs of it (when the Xyzs and Xyz...s total more than abt 25).

   but in practice, saying that (or, more to the point, since few casual editors do or should read the relevant documentation, putting that approach into action) leads to some editors adding (in the hypothetical case) 4-or-more-letter names beginning Xyz under that heading, even if an "Xyza" hdg immediately follows. (Stronger still is the analogous tendency of editors adding 3-or-more-letter names beginning Ma to a List of people by name: Ma page (which is likely to then rapidly grow as a page of Ma... names, competing with List of people by name: Maa-Mab and its siblings). My intention with "People named ..." hdgs is to make as explicit as possible (via page and section titles) where to add a given name, and to reinforce it by using section levels within a page's tree of sections analogously with page levels within the tree of pages.

3. With an eye to the foreseeable future, i looked at Cat LP for Bennet..., finding 5 people whose eventual addition would require 3 new sections, and "pre-emptively" added them and their sections, lest work between now and their addition require reworking organization done in the interim.

_ _ Finally, BTW, since i'd squeezed two levels of populated logical sections into one level of physical sections (having run out of elbow- and head-room), i moved all but the contents of the Benn section (including its descendants) out to new pages, and renamed the page to List of people by name: Benn. This required pasting from User:Jerzy/LoPbN Tools#Markup for Revising Links template to Template talk:List of people Ben Links, editing that talk, and replacement of the entire content of Template:List of people Ben Links, all of which i will leave beyond the scope of this discussion: i hope to have a new and more editor-friendly scheme for such edits in place later this week. I have a backlog of pages needing subdivision into new pages, resulting from section subdivisions i've done in the last few weeks, and someone, maybe me, will have to finally explain to interested LoPbN editors (potential page subdividers) this process, which previously has been esoteric enuf that i think no one else has attempted it in nearly 3 years. This relates to your comment on List of people by name: Brown, which didn't make it onto either User:Jerzy/Argus for LoPbN Templates or an index card with nearly 20 such titles, mostly between Cas-Caz and Gri, all needing splitting. Yes, Brown needs splitting, having both too many sections, and its ToC's deepest level including sections at two successive logical depths.
_ _ Well, not a perfect weekend, but one worth the effort. Hope yours was at least as satisfying.
--Jerzy•t 08:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• One other thing i forgot to include, and in fact i've forgotten whether it was on my mind bcz of the way you did at least one subdvn, or just bcz you are showing substantial interest in subdvns. An obvious procedure for doing simple (all subdivisions at same level) section subdivision is this:

1. Group the entries according to the next char after the end of their maximal common initial substring (counting "no further char" as a pseudo-char that i'd call "EndOfWord").
2. Start work on the first subsection.
3. Add groups to the current subsection, until adding the next group would bring it over the largest acceptable subs-section size.
4. Repeat 3 & 4 on successive subsections until each entry is included in a section.

(In retrospect, i can see that such an algorithm was probably actually implemented in software by an editor, now mostly inactive, who did a lot of section subdivisions for a while.) The obvious objection to that procedure comes when it produces two subsections, with several groups making up the first, and one entry making up the second; adding another entry will then probably require a resubdivision 90% or 95% of the time.

While i don't care to try a detailed analysis or to state an algorithm, i think that starting with that procedure's result, and repeatedly shifting one of those "groups" from a larger-than-average tentative subsection into an adjacent smaller one, is at least often the only kind of step needed to minimize the greatest subsection-size, and perhaps to minimize statistical measures of scatter of the subsection sizes. At the least, such subdivisions should reduce the probability that further editing of headings will again soon be necessary, and IMO they probably also decrease time for users to find the entry they seek. (It's probably a lot easier to do good subdivisions than to formalize the process.)
--Jerzy•t 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

von Heeremann

Good call, i think. (He sounds familiar, and there's a good chance you were fixing a clerical error by me. Thanks in any case!)
--Jerzy•t 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance tag

Thanks for your catch. I'm less surprised that i had completely forgotten abt it, than that i removed one tag and ignored the other. Probably a cautionary tale abt previewing everything. FWIW, i wrote a note to him at the time (archived w/o response).
--Jerzy•t 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gorky Park

I see You deleted Gorky Park from the Park disambig. page. Since this link leads to another disambig with five written links, maybe it's notable for the Park page anyway? G®iffen 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason at talk:Park(disamb) accepted. G®iffen 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey Chris, how you doing? I recently read about an interesting person and decided to write about her, Sylvia Mendez. Could you look the article over for errors? Thanks. Tony the Marine 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Chris, I really enjoyed writing the article. The amazing thing that I wanted to point out is that unlike popular belief (see: American Civil Rights movement) the civil rights movement was not only an African-American thing. The civil rights movement involved people of all colors and races. Tony the Marine 03:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Placido Acevedo

Sure, I'll look into it. Chris, I nominated Puerto Ricans in World War II for FA since it passed GA and FAC peer review. I wondering if you could take a look at it and maybe tie up any loose ends grammar-wise. Tony the Marine 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Help on Ramón Emeterio Betances

Chris, Tony the Marine recommended me to you as a good proofreader... ;-). I need help with the Betances article. It is quite big, but I'm almost done with it (the only thing remaining to do for it would be a thorough grammar and spell check, as well as attending any request that might come up from those who would evaluate it for GA (or hopefully FA) status. Could you give it a look? Take your time... Demf 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency to Counterinsurgency

There has been a new request to change the name of Counter-insurgency article to Counterinsurgency, I would request that you please comment about this new request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Counter-insurgency#Requested_move -Signaleer 08:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling/mis-scanned words

Hi Chris — thanks for the Barnstar by the way — I've been checking for words mis-scanned from public domain scanned books E.B.1911, Dictionary of Australian Biography etc. and fixing them up. Here's a few erroneous words I've found and corrected:

cornmitted, Constutional, lientenant, ernigrate, Olyrnpic, Bartholmew's and Batholomew's (for Bartholomew's), Parlianient, asssembly, demonstraters, bv (by), falth-healer (faith), charactor, Novernber, publie.

I used Google to search for these words in Wikipedia. – Diverman 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple mis-spellings of Portrait

Hi Chris, how do we go about fixing up approx. 148 (found by Google) occurrences of Portait and 76 of Potrait to Portrait? Is there an automated or semi-automated method? — Diverman 04:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You All

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[2]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friends a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 00:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Tony the Marine 04:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Omnitopia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omnitopia, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnitopia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.77.105 (talk • contribs) 05:10, May 9, 2007 (UTC)

I (disambiguation)

Hi, hoping to solicit you from nowhere as an objective third party. You've been chosen purely on the basis of (a) being the last contributor to the WP:MOSDAB talk page, and because the self-penned bio on your user page seems to qualify you as capable enough to offer a contribution.

A couple of months ago an anonymous IP added lowercase I prefix to the I (disambiguation) page, and after a wee look I figured that was an acceptable link. However, another editor has recently removed it, and reverted me when I restored it. The edit summaries at the dab page,[3] plus the conversation at my talk page (and also at his) show the progress of our discussions to date.

I'd like to avoid an endless edit war, but when there's only two users with opposing views, resolution can be difficult. I'm hoping you can help us move towards a solution with a third opinion, although of course no-one has an obligation to treat your word as binding. From my own point of view, if you also think it shouldn't be included I can drop it, but if you're in agreement with me I'll be slightly more inclined to pursue it further.

Obviously you're under no compulsion to get involved in any way. Regards anyhoo, --DeLarge 11:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Botswana and professional football

Hi. What happened here? Did you get hacked? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

Thanks very much for that. I will. Funny ... the move page gives the opposite impression (I must read it more thoroughly next time). Toodle pip! Roger 19:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirsten (given name)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kirsten (given name), by Koavf, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kirsten (given name) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

replicates Kirsten

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kirsten (given name), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Kirsten (given name) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to know Why is it at {given name} instead of {name} - e.g. Justin and Justin (name)? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No apologies necessary The "human editors" line was not at all harsh. Thanks for your response, and happy editing via Opera! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

External links on dab pages

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you referring to the references section or to external links within the references section? I'm adding the links due to concerns by editors on the discussion page. —Viriditas | Talk 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And just so you understand, I completely agree with the MoS and follow it to a T. Unfortunately, many of the editors in the current discussion do not, and given that it is only a guideline and not policy, there are issues with getting people to follow it. I am adding the refs for these people who have requested them. I would agree with removing them at some point in the near future, but even that could be debatable. —Viriditas | Talk 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We're in complete agreement. The problem is, other editors on the discussion page have demanded it. Can you make the ref section invisible and still use the cite.php? If so, that would work for now. Let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said previously, I don't have a problem doing that, it's just that the other editors on the talk page won't allow it. Can you post a new discussion section asking for input? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurata

On this edit of yours: I hadn't been aware that Kurata was ever a given name. But perhaps my memory is going. Could you give me an example? -- Hoary 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha.

That little matter aside, I'm a bit puzzled by what you're doing in "articles" such as this. I see them very much as disambigs: Those were great photos in that book last night. What was the photographer called -- Something Kurata? Kurata something? Dunno. Oh well, let's try 'Kurata'. I don't think of them as articles, or proto-articles. So hndis actually seems a good idea to me. Presumably this has all been discussed somewhere, and you have a good reason for doing what you're doing. Can you give me a link to an explanation? -- Hoary 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

I follow and appreciate the reasoning, but I'm not convinced. I've written my ideas here. My objections may well have been answered elsewhere; you (singular, plural) are welcome to point me there. -- Hoary 07:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah . . . perhaps you have mistaken me for somebody with lots of time and energy. Well, I'll consider your, um, invitation in the amicable spirit with which it was proffered. -- Hoary 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zimbo Trio

You wrote:

"I was disambiguating links to Bass, and could not tell whether the instrument used by Chaves and Collaco was a Double bass or a Bass guitar. Perhaps you could take care of this one."

Chris, to my best knowledge the Zimbo Trio always used the Double bass acoustical instrument, never on the Bass guitar. I had the fortune to watch them live, have several of their albums, and that's the instrument I've always seen. (sorry for my delay in replying) --AVM 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Biographical project notification

In case you are interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Sortkey and birth/death categories standardization project. Carcharoth 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

put

Dear Chris, I misread the sentence with "put" on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). So I agree with you. But am I right that we DO include a comma when the date is after the month?

|Correct: ||October 20, 1976

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Smirnov (surname)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Smirnov (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Smirnov. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Starkey and WP:DISAMBIG

I noticed that you removed links to the not-yet-written articles Starkey Laboratories and Starkey Hearing Foundation from Starkey (disambiguation page) per WP:DISAMBIG. Is this per the fourth bullet point in "Disambiguation pages" that states the following? "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader." I could not find a guideline against inclusion against such links in the immediately following section, "What not to include," so I assume you made this change per this point.

It could be argued that the removed topics are more notable than some that are currently listed (and, admittedly, that an article should exist for them; I may take that on at some point). It would seem helpful to list them here for people who may be looking for them on Wikipedia, to make it clear that they're in the right place but that the articles do not yet exist, as opposed to making them wonder whether they misspelled the topic they were interested in reading about. But, does WP:DISAMBIG trump this concern? You seem to have given this a lot of thought, so I look forward to hearing what you think. Thanks. Edurant 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up comments on my talk page. I created the Starkey Laboratories article as a stub and added it to the main section of the Starkey disambiguation page as the company is commonly known by the name "Starkey." Edurant 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. If you see me make mistakes like that in future, drop a note on my talk page. I'm more likely to notice that way. I'll try and check the other surname pages I created. Carcharoth 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I changed Gusmão and Bader to 'surname', but wasn't sure what to do with Baader (includes link to a gang and a film), Spence and Downey. The last two disambiguated more than just names. What happens there? Carcharoth 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel is needed. You obviously know what you are talking about. By the way, did you ever see the discussion (which I've lost) that led to this? What happened was that a clause had been inserted into the speedy deletion criteria allowing people to delete, or tag for deletion, disambiguation pages with only one link on them, or only one entry. Sometimes, such disambiguation pages need expanding, not deletion, so it needs careful thought and so wasn't appropriate for a speedy criteria. Carcharoth 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts

"The attacks of September 11, 2001 are the most serious..." is just as ungrammatical as "The attacks of 11 September 2001, are the most serious...". We should encourage neither.

I have adjusted to state the bare facts of the problem. I think it foolish to sacrifice grammar to the faults of our software; but others may differ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

if you continue to disagree, I commend {{disputedtag}} over reversion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you take the time to read what you reverted? It contained no instruction except the true statement that not linking such dates would avoid the question, which I considered a helpful (and not, of course mandatory) suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you claim that "The attacks of September 11, 2001 are the most serious..." is grammatical? If not, why take out the statement of fact that it isn't? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Metric/SI only

Please don't canvass. See WP:CANVAS for more information. --Coredesat 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was canvassing, but I had no idea what you were trying to promote in that message. If you want to draw attention to the discussion, a one-sentence pointer would suffice. I couldn't tell if your post was sarcasm, or mock sarcasm. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's punish the Americans

Originally posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals):

Let's all go over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Metric/SI only and punish the Americans for using pounds, feet, miles and acres, by making many Wikipedia articles difficult for them to use and understand. After all, just because those are the units they learned in school and see every day doesn't mean they should get anything useful out of Wikipedia, not when their despised government has refused to toe the line on using the metric system like all the respectable countries do. By prohibiting conversion of metric units into something Americans can understand, we'll make them change their tune! Chris the speller 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think we're being punished enough just by having to use the damn system? ☺ And mandating metric-only for non-U.S. Wikipedia articles won't help much. NASA lost the US$328 million Mars Climate Orbiter at least partly because of an English/metric confusion, when even American scientific enterprises use metric exclusively, yet the recent Endeavour landing was called off in nautical miles and thousands of feet in altitude. Businesses who quite reasonably don't want to replace all their English-measured capital equipment stoke the silly but pervasive fears Americans have of "conversion"; the government has virtually no power or motivation to change this. (Why convert anyway? I challenge anyone to use their hands to show me precisely four inches instead of precisely 10 cm. Blank out the MPH part of a standard speedometer, and it won't take long for a lifelong English-unit user to get used to metric speeds, especially given the uneven enforcement of speed laws in most jurisdictions.) It's an absurd uphill battle, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of fomenting social change, however useful it would be for everyone (especially us Yanks!). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Unreferenced claims

Unless you can provide at least spome reference to your edits, It's rather a sandbox than a serious edit. Get some expirience before getting into disputed disambigs. Best wishes.--Lokyz 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned MoS:DP in the edit summary for the Wolk page, but this is not a clear enough reference for some editors, apparently. Well, now I better read the MoS and get some experience with disambig pages (fixing about 5,000 seems not to be enough). I'm not sure how to avoid getting into disputed disambigs, though, when there's no dispute until my edits are reverted without explanation. I better learn how to be psychic. Chris the speller 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Abelardo

<Please explain why you reverted my edits. This should not be marked as a disambig page. Per MoS:DP, "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages". Unless you can explain your objection, I will correct the page. Here's a hint on courtesy: when reverting a good-faith edit, put some explanation in the edit summary. Chris the speller 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)>

Looking briefly at your history I see that several people have disagreed with you about this same issue (for example in the exchange about the name Kurata a bit higher up this page), and my point is doubtless more or less the same one that has been made several times before.

The MoS is a guideline only, although not of course to be disregarded lightly, and I happen not to agree with that small part of it. Abelardo, for example, is presently not an article at all - it is a list of names all featuring the element "Abelardo", and its sole function is to distinguish one Abelardo from another. That makes it AFAIAC a disambiguation tool functionally, until such time as someone adds enough extra content to it to turn it into an article, when it can properly be re-categorised.

But you seem to be extraordinarily attached to this one small bit of the procedures, whereas I don't feel strongly about it at all, mostly because it is such a very small bit of the procedures and makes little sense, so by all means trot along and put your edit back. Better still, I'll do it for you - how's that for courtesy? HeartofaDog 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never. Chris the speller 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

{{hndis}}

Thank you for your help, I've understood my mistakes. 16@r 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Friendly chat

Just dropping by to see how a my good friend is doing. Tony the Marine 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Did I tell that because of an article that I wrote in Wikipedia, I got an all expense paid trip to the state of Georgia this last May? If I didn't check this out:David M. Gonzales. Tony the Marine 04:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Roper and Whirlpool Corporation

Hi, when you changed the chronology section, the edit summary said you were disambiguating Roper, but you just removed the square brackets from Roper. A proper disambiguation would be more like this: [[Roper (appliances)|Roper]]... which gives Roper as the result. If you were doing this with automation, you may want to check your code. Hope that helps, happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(refactored per my policy) Thanks for your suggestions, but Roper (appliances) is a redirect right back to Whirlpool Corporation, so there didn't seem to be much sense in sending readers in a circle. The automated tool I was using does not facilitate using a different edit summary for the one delink when most of its edits are link disambiguations, so the comment was not particularly accurate, sorry. Happy editing! Chris the speller 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I should have checked that. However I leave circular redirects in place, sometimes... I know it may be confusing but maybe an article will arise. Still, no worries. Feel free to revert (if you already did I won't re-revert)... thanks for the followup. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Veneziano

Please allow me to clear this up. Veneziano literally means "of Venice" or "from Venice" or "the Venetian" - thus it is not so much a surname as a nickname given to people of Venetian origin. However, if you wish to have an entry on the surname that excludes other uses of the term that people might look for on a disambiguation page, you may have your cake and eat it too. I'll move the entry to Veneziano (surname) and set up a proper disambiguation page for other meanings. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• A Google search suggests that the plaster style is sometimes referred to simply as "Veneziano". bd2412 T 02:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I could be wrong. Seems to me, though, that if there are multiple defensible targets for a redirect, that states a case for a disambig page. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Given names and surnames

Would you have time to look at Aaron (name)? I added some extra surname to it, and I think it may need splitting into given name and surname dab pages, but I not sure, so I thought I'd ask you. I found the Aarons by looking at Category:Living people, which is fairly well sorted. I'm currently wondering whether to make another big push to get a supercategory set up for all people articles (dead ones as well as living), as the use of DEFAULTSORT seems to be fairly widespread now, so such a supercategory would really help with keeping dab pages up to date (similar in a way to how List of People by Name used to try and do this). Did I ever show you User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index? It doesn't do anything the category system doesn't do already, but I think it would be nice to be able to do this for all people articles. Of course, getting an automated list would be even better. I wonder if the disambiguation templates should include a search link to encourage people to update them? At the moment, the special prefixindex function will find all pages starting with a particular string, but what would be even better is if a page could be automatically generated to show all articles with the same surname in their DEFAULTSORT magicword! Of course, people would still be needed to annotate the dab pages, unless infobox information could be used to do that... Sorry to bounce these ideas off you. Do any of tehm sound feasible or worth the effort of finding people who could make them work? Carcharoth 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm copying this over to the technical village pump. I'd still be interested in your views, and sorry for the stream of consciousness outpouring! :-) Carcharoth 05:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Aaron (name) page is OK for now. If anyone decides to add onomastic information to the top of the article, it's better to have it at the top of one article than to have redundant ramblings in two articles. When the given name has different origins that the surname, I tend to favor separate articles. The compact index seems pretty useful, but I'm still smarting from the loss of a couple of months' worth of edits when LoPbN got blown away, and have trouble getting excited about any lists of people by surname. Most of my work lately has been getting surname lists off disambig pages and into their own articles, but with no intention of following up on them. Sorry I can't get more excited about your ideas, but some other editors are bound to appreciate them plenty. Happy editing! Chris the speller 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I might get back into fixing up hndis pages in the near future, so I might really find your compact index handy after all. Thanks for letting me know about it. Chris the speller 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, it is only living people, unfortuntately, and there is no guarantee any particular article is correctly sorted. Carcharoth 06:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAT

I asked a question regarding hatnotes over all tags and thought you could take part in answering it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyodor

Hi, Chris! Could you, please, take a look at the Fyodor page? I used to work on disambiguation pages quite a bit, but I kind of lost track of the most recent developments due to lack of time, so I am not entirely sure exactly how the dab/first name collisions are supposed to be handled now (MOSDAB hasn't exactly become any clearer on this subject since the last time I consulted it). If you could just clean Fyodor up as you normally do with such pages, I'd have an example to follow (and possibly questions to ask :)). This is not at all urgent, however. Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! I suspected this is how it should have been done, but I had my doubts on a few points. Your example was most helpful in clearing them up. I am, however, curious why you decided to leave this guy first in the list? Surely he can't be the most well-known Fyodor there's even been? Also, at what point would you say the list of people with the first name of Fyodor would become too long to be left with the rest of the dab?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from Oliver (moved from user page and signed)

Thank you Chris the speller for directing me and being so kind. Shall we work together as I need a mentor and I have already done a lot of mess. I love billiard and I have coached many italian nationals and I work at Deutsche as a hobby but my main interest is nice girls Art, Disco Music but I still need some directions being very lazy..Wish you a good day Olivier Doria. I would be very honoured if you contacted me but I bet you can't find my e-mail (but the bet is 1 good beer or pasta) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver doria (talk • contribs) 20:58, June 24, 2007

(Adding an old date to allow auto archiving) Chris the speller 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fairbairn

"It does not help to add disambig or hndis tags where the page only contains people who share a surname."
Well yes, I agree, but this page does not only "contain people who share a surname" ...
So, I'm not altogether sure I agree with your statement "It's a surname article, not a disambig page" ...
(However, I'm not about to "die in a ditch" either opposing your POV, or supporting my POV! ;-) )
Cheers, Pdfpdf 07:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to go around confusing or upsetting other editors or readers, so I'd like to know what it was about the change that you didn't agree with. I see no articles on that page that deserve to be called simply Fairbairn. If there were a couple, I would make the page into a real disambig page and move the people to a new article, Fairbairn (surname). From what I can see, the only non-people articles are a few in the See also section that simply contain Fairbairn as part of the article name. If I had been in a fairly grumpy mood, I might have applied the instruction in WP:D#Lists and taken some or all of them out, but then it would truly only be a list of people with that surname, so it would be a surname article, and WP:D no longer would apply, so they could go back in. If you know that some of these are generally called simply "Fairbairn", then I would completely change the page. Let me know. Chris the speller 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we must be talking at cross purposes; i.e. I think you think I'm saying something completely different from what I think I'm trying to say.

• I see no articles on that page that deserve to be called simply Fairbairn - Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
• the only non-people articles are a few in the See also section - Agreed. (5 articles actually.) Yes, that was what I was referring to when saying it doesn't only contain references to "people who share a surname".
• If I had been ... and taken some or all of them out - Sorry, again I don't understand.
• but then ... so they could go back in. - Agreed.
• If you know that some of these are generally called simply "Fairbairn", then I would completely change the page. - Sorry, don't understand.

What I was saying is: "It seems to me that this is (still) a 'disambig page', because (in the 'See also' section) it contains stuff about things other than people."

It doesn't bother me that you've changed it to a 'surname page'. I am just a little confused as to why you changed it. I hope that helps explain "what I didn't agree with". In any and all cases, I'm quite comfortable with the page as it is at the moment, and happy to leave it as it is. Cheers, Pdfpdf 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The key is understanding what the purpose of a disambig page is. Per WP:D, when a "term [is] likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article", the need for a disambig page arises. Imagine a parallel universe where there is a large city in Alaska named Fairbairn (not Fairbanks), and Ford Motor Company produced a car mode named Fairbairn (not Fairlane), and there was a famous author named Evelyn Fairbairn. A person asked where thay lived might answer "Fairbairn", a person asked what kind of car they drive might answer "Fairbairn", and a person asked who their favorite author is might answer "Fairbairn". But all three can't have an article named Fairbairn, so qualifiers would be added to the city and the car, and the articles would be named "Fairbairn, Alaska" and "Fairbairn (automobile)", with a "Fairbairn" disambig page to aid navigation. The author already has a given name, and Wikipedia naming conventions hold that the natural article title for a person is generally the given name and surname together, so no real conflict there, but they tend to get added to the dab page. If the list of people gets to be more than a handful, they should be moved to a surname article (which, by definition, is not a disambiguation page). In this universe, I don't see any article that has a claim to the natural title "Fairbairn", so the people can occupy that spot as a surname article. Having a See also section doesn't turn an article into a dab page; it's just a courtesy to readers who might land on that page seeking something other than those people. If I were shown that a Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife was carried by 2 out of 3 people, and most people called it simply a Fairbairn, I would see the need for a disambig page (and for some body armor for myself), and the Fairbairn people would get moved to Fairbairn (surname). I admit that as the page stands now, this is a fairly close call, and if someone made it into a disambig page, I wouldn't die in the ditch, either. What drew me here was the hndis template, which was not applicable here (but is properly used on Andrew Fairbairn). Hope this helps. Chris the speller 18:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps - It certainly does. (Also, I now understand your previous reply!!) Thank you for going to so much effort to enlighten me. Most appreciated. Regards, Pdfpdf 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Relationship(s) between "surname" and "hndis"

I've been thinking. (No rude comments thank you, no matter how justified the comments may be ... )
There are several "hndis" situations within the Fairbairn page. Andrew Fairbairn is a particularly good example because that page/list contains two entries, whereas the Fairbairn page/list only contains one of the Andrews.
Two questions/comments:

• In an ideal world, there would be some sort of cross-reference/cross-link between the Andrew Fairbairn page and the Fairbairn page. Does WP have a functionality to support this?
• Is there any WP mechanism to support/ensure/enforce consistency? (Given that these two pages are not consistent with each other, I would guess not!)

Cheers, Pdfpdf 09:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer to 1: No.

Answer to 2: None exists. Perhaps an invisible note could be added to each page, encouraging a change in the other page. Just being made aware of the other page would probably be a help. With just 2 Andrews, they should probably both be listed on each page. For longer lists, I have seen surname pages defer to the hndis page, just mentioning that there are several cases of "Joe Smith". However, the question remains whether a surname page should be an exhaustive list or something more or less, whereas a hndis page should certainly list all articles that have been written or should be written. The surname pages sometimes start to accumulate every editor's great-uncle, while disambig (hndis) pages have reasonably strict standards. Chris the speller 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the enlightenment. (Your comment The surname pages sometimes start to accumulate every editor's great-uncle raised a chuckle; I'm afraid I may have been guilty of contributing to such situations at one time or another!) Pdfpdf 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairbairn vs Fairburn (vs Fairbn)

And now a question for you. Is the second syllable in Fairbairn usually unstressed, causing it to be pronounced much like Fairburn?

In Australia, yes. (I can't comment with any reliability on what happens elsewhere.) In fact, it's often shortened too. (i.e. Fair-bn)

If so, I could add a See also entry.

Good point. Yes, I agree.

(Many Americans pronounce names the way they appear, and think there are 4 syllables in Cholmondeley, so at least give me credit for asking). Chris the speller 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

After the sterling effort of your previous replies to my questions, I'm happy to give you credit for whatever you would wish to be credited with!

Australians notice all the syllables, but then tend to shorten some and drop others. Examples:

• Few would know about Chumley; most would probably pronounce it something like Ch-mond-ly
• We call ourselves Ozzies, and our major cities are pronounced: Sinny, Mel-bn, Briz-bn, Ad-lade and Can-brǔ (i.e. u-as-in-up, not u-as-in-you)

(We tend to get amused when we hear visitors refer to "you oss-sies", Mel-born, Briss-bain, A-del-aide/Ad-el-aide and Can-berra.)

• But conversely, he call the car/feline a jag-u-ar, and our tallest mountain (hill? 7000ft) Koz-i-oss-ko!

I think the American expression is "go figure"? Pdfpdf 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)