User talk:Eric/Archive 4, 2016

Eric's talkpage archive no. 4 – 2016


About Lefranc de Pompignan

Hi Eric: you've suppressed my correction : where I added dates and mentioned that Lefranc de Pompignan was bishop of Le Puy. You mentioned Voltaire and his Lettre d'un quaker. Read it : He attacked Lefranc de Pompignan as bishop of Le Puy :" De quoi t’avises-tu, dans une instruction dite pastorale, adressée aux laboureurs, vignerons, et merciers du Puy en Velay, de dire (page 38) que le système de gravitation est menacé de décadence ? Qu’a de commun la théorie des forces centripètes et centrifuges avec la religion et avec les habitants du Puy en Velay" ?. So it is wrong to write that the archbishop of Vienne was attacked by Voltaire. I maintain my version : you can rewrite as you want .. Cheers--Lou raspoutchou (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article's talkpage. Eric talk 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honey bee

Hello, Eric. I can read the dictionary and referred to same in my original edit on the proper common name for Apis mellifera, so your comment seemed inappropriate. My understanding is that the dictionary is not the reference guide wikipedians should use for insect common names - instead it's ITIS, Tree of Life (ToL) and ESA Common Names of Insects - see [[1]]. I modified your revert and added that all three of these references use "honey bee". In contrast, they would run the two words together when the insect common name is not of that insect Order, as in dragonfly or butterfly. I mainly do mammal pages where we use Mammalian Species of the World and Tree of Life as guides to common names so it seems surprising to rely on the dictionary for insects.Schmiebel (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schmiebel, I did not mean to imply that you cannot read. I just suggested consulting a dictionary before you unilaterally eliminate mention of a common name spelling. Convention in the entomology community, however long-established and well-considered, does not preclude mention of a longstanding alternative spelling of a common name in this article. And the second paragraph of an article is not the place for an essay discouraging the use of a common name. Dictionaries are in fact good sources for determining the prevalence of a term. The AHD lists honeybee as a standalone entry, and Google's ngram viewer shows honeybee surpassing honey bee in prevalence a hundred years ago. I do not cite these to promote use of the single-word spelling. I am the last person to claim that mob rule should determine what is considered correct, and I have no argument against honey bee, but I'm certain that your removal of honeybee as an AKA is inappropriate. We may want to move this discussion to Talk:Honey_bee#honeybee_vs._honey_bee, or create a new section there. I don't think this should be a debate between just us two. Eric talk 16:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cortado

Hi Eric. Yes, it is more than just take the edge off the bitterness, but either it gets moved to a dedicated section on etymology to be explained in more detail, or it would become disproportionately too long in the lede. At first I actually typed "reducing", then changed it to "cutting (out)". Your example of the whiskey is in fact the same concept as with the cortado - not necessarily a referrence to a negative quality, so perhaps "strength" is a better word that "bitterness". But in both cases, to some drinkers strong coffee and neat whiskey (especially in the case of lower quality whiskeys) can be unpleasant. In both cases, the person wanting to dilute it would say that "it is too strong". With reference to whiskey, the term "cut" is also used to the practice of adulterating black market whiskey with water. So I guess, after all, the better suited term would be "dilute", leaving out any reference to the result (less bitter, less strong, etc.). I will change that, let me know what you think. Thanks for alerting me. (Are you of Irish background? My favourite whiskeys!) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I also wondered about the comparison to macchiatto, so I am glad you removed it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rui- I think "cut" is good; I'll work it back in and see what you think. As for whiskey, I lean toward Scotch, though I apparently have some Irish strands of DNA! Cheers, Eric talk 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. Good solution to cut through the etymological milkiness of an otherwise already dark entity. Nice and short.
Why I asked about your background, is your preference for "whiskey" over "whisky". Irish products are labelled "whiskey", whereas Scottish ones are labelled "whisky". I am referring to actual labels on the bottles, but now I see that "whiskey" (bourbon) is also the usual spelling in US English. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Thanks. Ah, I never noticed it was just the Scots who eschewed the e. I've always just thought the lonely y was just an alternative spelling, somewhat rustic-looking. I like seeing that spelling, but I've never dared to try it myself. Maybe I'll take a couple snorts of the Talisker and give it a go one day... Eric talk 14:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votre commentaire

Bonjour, puisque vous avez indiqué que vous parliez francais courrament je me permet de vous écrire en francais. Dans un forum vous me traitez de "high maintenance editor". Permettez moi je vous donner la définition de Wikipedia à ce sujet:Occasionally, some long-time users come to believe they are more important than other editors, and act in ways that seek to regularly receive validation of that belief. Validation is obtained by delivering and obtaining compliance with ultimatums, such as threatening to storm off the project in a huff—a "retirement" or long wikibreak. Other examples including threats to make vexatious claims at noticeboards, or to cease all work in a particular topic area. These dramatics are usually accompanied by a long diatribe about whatever petty issue is driving them away this time". Qu'est ce qui vous permet de me juger ainsi? Ai je menacé qui que se soit ? Posé des ultimatums ou bien brandi la menace de quitter wiki? Je me permet de vous rappeler que comme dans tout projet participatif, la retenue, et la considération des autres utilisateurs est de mise. Et votre formulation est clairement péromptoire. La prochaine fois, s'il vous plaît avant de jeter l'opprobre sur un des utilisateurs, veillez à mesurer votre langage, et soyez s'il vous plaît un peu plus courtois et respectueux des autres.--Gabriel HM (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vos arguments décousus et irritables--et souvent hors sujet--sont difficiles à suivre. De plus, ils ne m'intéressent pas. Veuillez mener vos diatribes ailleurs. Eric talk 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My message was very clear, but maybe your French in not as good as I thought. It might have been easier in English for you. In a nutshell, please refrain to use incorrect term towards others since according to the wiki definition I'm not a High profile maintenance guy. Kind regards.--Gabriel HM (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your messages are rambling and disjointed in both English and French. And you may want to re-read your French above before you go commenting on others' fluency levels. Go away. Eric talk 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind comment. At last it shows that your opinion about me is very negative, so are your comments. My English is not perfect, but as for my French, you can show this message to any of a French fluent person. This is a perfect French, I'm sorry that you can't get it. Have a great day.--Gabriel HM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At sign example of roguelikes

Hey! If I uploaded a better quality image illustrating an example of how the At sign plays into roguelikes, do you think that would suffice? Thanks in advance!--DrWho42 (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoctorWho42 - I suppose so. I don't really know how widely known the Roguelike games are, so I'm not the best person to ask. If you put a pic that shows the symbol better, other editors will decide if they think it's warranted. Eric talk 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

Hi Eric. You posted on my talk page a couple months ago about a disruptive editor. Someone has brought an ANI about him/her here: [2]. Regards. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I made a comment there. Eric talk 19:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thanks! Eric talk 03:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

turnpike in nova scotian english

I was just cruising through wikipedia - im a dabbler who occassionally makes suggestions - not a pro at all - i see now i should "watch" the pages i edit and ill do that from now on. i see one edit i made you changed and i think, as you referenced in your comments, you did make an improper assumption.

(cur | prev) 17:55, 7 November 2013‎ Eric (talk | contribs)‎ . . (814 bytes) (-137)‎ . . (links, rm what I believe to be a reference to one specific trail in Nova Scotia. Sorry if I got something wrong--I'm assuming "turnpike" is not in general use in NS to refer to any portage trail along an esker.) (undo | thank)

i dont know what/ how to address this other than to write you this note and perhaps you can tell me, based on your experiene what the next step should be - i dont want to simply change the edit back withouth talking to you first.

turnpike is in fact used in two ways by canoeists in (south western) nova scotia - one is we do often say "The Turnpike" for a particular carry (our word for portage) between Annapolis and Digby Counties - but it is also used for ANY carry trail over an esker - thus we say i followed a turnpike to boundary rock, for example.

eskers are common in south western nova scotia - and the mi'kmaw did much more walking on these paths than canoeing, contrary to popular belief.

for reference i would point you to the book "Canoeing the Tobeatic" by Andy Smith wherein he uses turnpike this way. As does Mike Parker, a noted nova scotian author who writes specifically about the backwoods of nova scotia.

as for "general use", i would not use the word esker in normal conversation as no one would understand but turnpike is a word used by hunters, snowmobilers and predominatly canoeists because they are the only people who "use" the carry trails.

if despite this, the article stays as it is, i wont lose any sleep over it - but just wanted to communicate how we here in SWNS use the word.

thanks Jonathan Shore (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonathan:- Thanks for spotting my error. You should be able to undo my edit, I think. If any subsequent edits have altered the page in a way that would conflict with your revert, the system will give you a message that the edit can't be undone, and you'll have to do it manually. But I would ask that you keep esker and portage without caps (the wikilink will resolve without the initial capital).
Here's how you post a link to the difference between two versions (called a "diff" here) via an article's history page: [<url of diff (copied from browser's address bar)><single space><whatever text you want here>] (without the <>). In the next sentence, I'll put a link to the diff you cited above and, when you go into an edit session to reply to me here, you'll be able to see how it's implemented: Here is the diff of my erroneous edit. Let me know if this makes sense! Eric talk 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


thanks @Eric: - i made the change manually with small caps. it seems i only make changes to nova scotia stuff - our provincial fish, retired MLAs and words for canoeing - but it is fun to contribute now and then about my home - thanks for your help Jonathan Shore

Glad to help! Eric talk 15:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod

Eric, Why are my contributions to 'In Popular Culture' on the Cape Cod page not valid? My references were valid and I provided references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbrigg (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisbrigg: Chris, I didn't find the content you added to be notable. If we write about every mention of Cape Cod in every song and movie, the article will be a mile long. These "in popular culture" sections often get filled with trivia--tidbits that might be fun or interesting to some people, but that don't really belong in an encyclopedia article. You might find some guidance here (I haven't read through the whole thing): Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content. Eric talk 20:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric: Okay, thank you.

Your cancelation and comment

Hi Eric, I saw that you cancelled my cancellation from a disruptive anonymous editor that keep changing all the names in English by German ones, like waad, Wallis or Walkerhorn for Grandes Jorasses for exemple, and thus leading in this article in the destruction of the redirections by creating articles that are not existing like the Waadt canton, or erasing French names in articles [3]. Furthermore he makes racist and antisemitic comments on talk pages [4],[5], [6]. In the article about Morat I just cancelled his edits, he not only modified the names used, but destroyed wiki links. You made a comment with your cancellation: [7] and I don't know if the comment that you made is addressed to me or to this user. Many of his others disruptive edits have been already cancelled by other users [8],[9]. I strongly suspect this user to be contributing with this second IP address [10], since he used the same terms and edits on similar articles, from the same location, where he keeps making antisemitic, racist and francophobics comments and edits [11], [12], [13], [14] and I could quote forever. Unfortunately nobody is very keen nor quick to intervene, at least not as fast as you my own edits. As far as I'm concerned I just reinstated the previous version that was accepted by all. Could you please tell me to whom you were exactly referring by being "a tendentious campaign editor". If you are adressing to me we can solve this issue by bringing this matter to the administrative notice board. I don't think that I'm a tendentious editor by reinstating the former correct version, especially by cancelling the edits from a what it seems to be a racist/antisemitic contributor, unless you are supporting this editor which is not possible. I just want to believe that you have been too fast in your cancellation without taking the time to check what was the previous edit.... But IF the comment and the cancelation was addressed to me, please next time before doing so, take the time to check what was the previous edit.--Gabriel HM (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the article name on the article's talkpage. Don't refer people to my talkpage to discuss such things. And don't waste your time and mine leaving long essays here. Eric talk 13:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the right place since you made personals and unjustified attacks. This issue is not about Morat or Murten since I really don't mind, the issue is your comments. This is not the first time that you are doing it. Next time if you want to save your time and mine, refrain to do this. You are not above the rules, and I kept record from your previous attacks. I really hope that this is the last time that we have to have this kind of discussion, next time I will fill up an official complain, you might be an administrator, but the rules are the same for all.--Gabriel HM (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no attack. You seek conflict and drama on Wikipedia; I do not. I'm just here to help, and I call things as I see them. Go away, keep off my talkpage. Eric talk 23:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for the notice.

I do agree with using edit summaries for important changes/reverts/things that you want to make a note of. Sometimes I make a large number of edits/tweaks at a time and trying to put an edit summary in for each one would take too much time away from what I'm trying to do. It may be best to suggest that people put in edit summaries at key/important momnts. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're always worth providing as a courtesy to your collaborators, and I'm guessing someone has come up with a way to automate them for mass changes. Eric talk 02:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "blanching" vs. "blanch"

You say that "blanching" rather than "blanch" looks amateurish. You can always challenge the current policy, though of course you should bring some evidence. As far as I can tell, this is standard practice in reference works: Chapter or section headings in cookbooks? Encyclopedia (not dictionary) headings (though the Oxford Companion to Food has an entry for "poach")? Library subject headings? --Macrakis (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: Ah, I had not considered the cookbook angle--good point. That immediately called to mind the index in the Joy of Cooking, which I just confirmed uses -ing for procedures. My Food Lover's Companion, on the other hand, goes with the infinitive. I guess I tend to go by dictionary entry style as my standard. Never seen the Library of Congress subject heading listing--thanks for that. Though we must read US gov't publications with a grain of salt; they'll tell us to write Douglas fir with a hyphen—an abomination for which any good English teacher would rap our knuckles.
But WP is not a dictionary: it is not about words, but about the concepts behind them. --Macrakis (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I realize that. And I know full well what Wikipedia is not. Eric talk 03:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended. There are a gazillion WP rules, and I'm sure I don't know all of them. You just mentioned "I tend to go by dictionary entry style as my standard", so I thought you might have been unaware of that guideline/policy. --Macrakis (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, none taken! I'm definitely aware of the policy. I just meant that I start from a more traditional view of reference works in my endeavors here. But over the years I've been forced to broaden my views, given gems like these two, for example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_threat, Headlight_flashing. Eric talk 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Eric. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers!

Hi Eric, thanks for the pointers on always writing an edit summary and using sandbox and preview functions to minimize editing clutter in articles like Asilidae ! To be honest I'd been avoiding the sandbox because I couldn't find any immediate pointers explaining how parallel editing occurrences are resolved, for example if someone else would be editing the same article with versus without using his or her respective sandbox. Pdeley (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdeley: Hi, you're welcome. As your watchlist grows, you'll see that it's a big help and time-saver if the other editors are leaving summaries. And I think you'll find that edit conflicts will be rare in the field where you've been editing. You might find some helpful guidance on that topic here: Help:Edit conflict. Eric talk 14:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]