User talk:Piledhigheranddeeper/Archives02

Archives from 2009

Question

How is this edit summary helpful? Law shoot! 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diction is word choice. Diction corrections typically involve the substitution of the right word for the wrong one. Use of a word as a part of speech that it is not (e.g., "birth" is a noun, not a verb) is especially wrong. Indeed, that particular mis-use is so far off standard (i.e., encyclopedic) English usage that it is sometimes used to show the uneducated, ignorant nature of the person using the word that way (and to elicit the reaction noted), e.g., Gone With the Wind's illiterate Prissy: "I don't know how to birth a baby!" See also discussion at Bartleby.

--Piledhigheranddeeper 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of diction. I was specifically referring as to why you felt the need to say you found the word choice to be 'appalling.' I specialize in taxation - not prose. In essence, I rely on other editors, to improve what I have written - which is how a wiki works. I do not expect other editors to be condescending when they do it. Saying that it is an example of the 'uneducated, ignorant nature of the person using the word' further goes to some need you have to put others down. While I've had limited exposure with you, it has not been a positive one. You never answered the question I asked. You condescended into an elaborate rant, however, I am still wondering why you felt that calling someone's diction 'appalling' is an appropriate thing to do. It's hard to believe that you couldn't have corrected the error without expressing such dramatic dismay. Law shoot! 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Merriam-Webster, where 'birth,' is indeed a verb. Law shoot! 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked (albeit unspecifically), and I answered. Please don't get huffy or ad hominem if I explained how one could be "appalled" by "an example of the 'uneducated, ignorant nature of the person using the word'", when you asked. As noted earlier, that particular word usage is often made to elicit that very reaction; for all I knew—and know, as you have not explained your choice—you were doing just that. I was acknowledging that; I bear you no ill will.
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word was well within the source I provided. I realize you bear me no ill will. I would simply ask that if you are appalled or dismayed or repulsed by such diction, simply edit, leave a summary save personal commentary, and realize that those behind edits, have genuine feelings. It's not tough to leave an edit summary that is devoid of personal reaction. Take care. Law shoot! 12:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical telegraph

Are you sure about this? The chart appears to show a major route across continental europe also. I would have said a more apt qualification to the legend is that it is showing early telegraph routes to Britain. SpinningSpark 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got a point, pardner! That is, about the cross-European line (although its being shown in bold suggests that it might have been depicted as "proposed" or something). However, there are also lines shown from Marseille to North Africa, not connecting to GB (at least not shown). This is a knottier question than first appeared... How about "major international routes in Europe" or something like that?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the information on the image's page it is, 19th Century map showing the early telegraph cables which connected Britain with the rest of the World. The map is Britain-centric, so your suggestion of "major international routes in Europe" would be innacurate, I am pretty sure there are some major European routes not shown on the map (I've written about some of them); they are not shown because they don't lead to Britain. SpinningSpark 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Keith

Hi PH&D - thanks for catching the vandalism. I've left a message on the miscreant's page. What a pain. Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

transition

Hi, for better or worse, most modern dictionaries regard "transition" as both a noun and intransitive verb. —EqualRights (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it's un-encyclopedic.Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol's floating harbour

I think there's also some justification to capitalising it when the phrase is treated as a proper noun referring to this one specific example, such as "the Floating Harbour", but when it's merely an adjectival phrase like this you were correct to lowercase it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes minister

Nice minor edit. That avoids progam vs programme.

SimonTrew (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics of borrowed terms in English

I saw you italised use of "e.g." in Meningitis, and whilst foreign words are gernally so shown per WP:MOSITALICS, WP:MOSITALICS#Foreign_terms goes on to state "Loan words or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." - and "e.g." does so appear per [1]. Now I agree that if the full phrase of "exempli gratia" were to be present in an article, that is not commonly used in English and would therefore need to be shown as exempli gratia, but "e.g." and "i.e." do not IMHO need flagging as foreign terms. Anyway I'm interested in your take on this (you clearly do a lot of good copyediting work) David Ruben Talk 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do a fair amount of italicizing, I'll grant you that. I agree that if a word has, for practical purposes, become an English word, italics are not needed ("robot", for example, is now about as English as it is Czech). In marginal cases (one isn't likely to come across a taxi driver, butcher, or television newscaster using "e.g."), it's my general tendency to err on the side of italicizing, and my Latin training may have made me more sensitive to the presence of Latin in English than some other languages, especially as I use modernized Latin on a daily basis, and various professors' influence still shows through. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair position :-) David Ruben Talk 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hettinger County, North Dakota

Thanks for fixing the county seat — when I created these templates, I occasionally failed to catch copy/paste errors. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coding facttags

Just wanted to ask you not to place facttags with a date of "may2009"; if you look at this version of Montpelier, Vermont, you'll see that using "may2009" puts them into a nonexistent category. Using "May 2009" will put it into the correct category. Not a complaint; just trying to make things run a little smoother. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used the other form (indeed, several versions) earlier, but odd problems arose. If that's been fixed, I'm happy to comply.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Peau de chagrin

Hey there.. You asked about the plot summary in La Peau de chagrin: "does he pay for it? how, with no money?" The answer is: No. The shopkeeper lets him take it for free, but urges him not to. I'm not quite sure how best to describe this in the summary, without adding a weighty sentence. Do you think it needs more explanation? Thanks for your attention to detail! Scartol • Tok 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and style

Thanks for your fixes to Windsor Locks, Connecticut tornado. However minor, they are much appreciated. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

I've long been intrigued by your username, and I wanted to ask where it actually came from. It sounds to me like a sandwhich... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of my business, but see the old joke at Piled_Higher_and_Deeper#Parodies As always, Smallbones (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Smallbones is hot on the trail. It is indeed a reference to my Ph.D. degree, and a joke as to the mound of crap involved. I'm struck that anybody would be paying attention for a "long" time!--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit now that I have been wondering about your username for some time, too. I won't tell you what it always initially made me think of! Maedin\talk 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maedin, that is actually part of the joke. A BS = Bull sh$$, A MS = More of the Same, PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper. -Djsasso (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realised that when I made my comment, but I had previously been thinking of engineering. Being in engineering myself, I seem to see the references everywhere! It's a little embarrassing, when everyone else is talking about shit, to admit that you had been thinking of piling rigs, ;-) Maedin\talk 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh! It's almost like having a secret fan club!--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you qualify for being a fence man.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Post Hole Digger, too! What is the world coming to?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a sad world where a PhD can earn less than a post hole digger. --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all supply and demand, said the economist parrot. (Except when it isn't.)--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shocking Miss Pilgrim

Please don't change the wording, and therefore the meaning, of referenced statements. The story was submitted to the agent to pass around to film studios in the hope one of them would express interest in filming it. This is not the same as "giving him the rights to the story," which you edited the article to read, in which case he, as owner of the story, would be the one to receive payment from the studio. It was his job to find a buyer in exhange for his commission, period. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. —Ph&d

Marry Me a Little, Marry Me a Little More

Thank you for your improvements to the article. If you have time, could you do a copyedit/fix the errors (I'm having trouble finding them). Thanks, Theleftorium 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; didn't mean to roll you back

I meant to say in the talk box that gravity can send objects flying away as well as pull them in. Serendipodous 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Georgia

I appreciate your edits to the page. I found it very funny that a phrase added to clarify that the article was about the state of Georgia was linked to the country of Georgia in a later edit. Thanks for catching that. Leeatcookerly (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Denmark

Thanks for your work on the intro. I realise it needs to be further expanded. I hope to get back to it within the next day or two.Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Eggnog Riot

The event actually happened. It was not a joke. This has been mentioned in several books in passing about the history of the United States Military Academy. There was another book which I used as my main source as a reference that was done back in 1979. Chris (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Livingston, Montana

In a recent edit, you removed the words World Famous from the description of Dan Bailey's fly shop as POV. I am curious as to why when the source: Berryman, Fly-Fishing Pioneers and Legends clearly explains the World Famous reputation of the fly shop.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Value judgments such as "famous", especially if further modified ("world famous"), and made as blanket statements without qualification, are points of view (PoV), even if supporting citations can be found (capitalizing "World Famous" accentuates the PoV-ness, BTW). An encyclopedia should stick to facts, not opinions. For more depth and discussion, see the official policy. I acknowledge that "famous" can blur into fact, however. I'd suggest, at the least, that the statement be qualified as "famous among fly fishermen" or something like that.-Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]