User talk:Srednuas Lenoroc

Nomination of Pictures for Sad Children for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pictures for Sad Children is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictures for Sad Children until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Welcome!

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Srednuas Lenoroc, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Srednuas Lenoroc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful in future

Though I have answered there, still this would be useful in future.

  • If you want to add it, see this
      |title = Students Supporting Israel at the University of Minnesota Honored at CAMERA’s Annual Gala | In Focus
    This is the parameter.

  • But since the symbol | has some other uses, please use {{!}}. That will show the pipe character.
  • One more thing. If you use Visual Editor; then there is a parameter/ field called Source title: You need to fill
    Students Supporting Israel at the University of Minnesota Honored at CAMERA’s Annual Gala {{!}} In Focus in that.
    aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 13:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is " Visual Editor".Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, At least ping me. Visual Editor is What you see is what you get type editor, where even if you don't know the WikiMark up, it is fine. But most of the editors don't like it. If you find beta in right top corner,and tick all of them, and save it: you will find new Edit word next to Edit source. The former is Visual Editor, and the later is the basic editor.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting much too complicated for one that wanted through exploration of an missplelled word to correct.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies on behalf of Wikipedia the Complicated; with respect to @Acagastya: that explanation looks pretty much impossible for a "newbie" to follow. If you don't understand it yet I can explain, or you can look at the WP:Citation templates, WP:PIPE, WP:PING, WP:Visual Editor, WP:Markup pages. Hope you didn't get too flustered; we usually try to ease people in to the complicated guts of WP.
Anyway, the reason I came here was to thank you for catching my typo. Keep up the good work! FourViolas (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; they happen. Unfortunately, some of them are more hidden than others but the style I use to detect them is far more inclusive that exclusionary. If more people when they find a typo would apply that experience to a complete search of WP then far more would be found including questionable statements or incomplete statements. There will always be those that can catch a word misapplied but the arrangements of the characters can cause the eye not to recognize a misspelled word but when you think about what are the possibilities based on the key location of characters and how they can be hit in the wrong order then they are found out. It is just too tedious for some people. But when you come from a background such as I you have family members that are of one language group on an official basis such as with school and government but use another that you do not receive education in such things as spelling and phonetics yet the parts of phonetics of one is used in the expression of the other you become more adept at sleuthing. We all have strengths but some in making statements that are too complicated especially for a newbie.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Please do not "correct" spelling in wikilinks like you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_529&diff=next&oldid=458615910 This change broke the link to the associated wikiarticle, which has the abbreviations in its title.--BillFlis (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

trans-title parameter

Hi, Srednuas Lenoroc. I saw your edit to the Faà di Bruno's formula article. I just wanted to mention that the common cite templates use a |trans-title= parameter for translation of titles. I changed it to use it. Also, instead of translating the journal name, I also used its LCCN number. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Sweden School

Hi there. I reverted your edit, but the version I reverted it to also has a redlink, so please revert it back if you like. The US Dept of Education calls the school district the "Idaho Falls District", and the District calls itself "Idaho Falls School District 91". I will try to create an article for the district as soon as I can to clear this up. Thank for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how does the Idaho education ministry call it as well as legally referred to in it bonded indebtedness.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against women and THRID

The NYT article (here) is THRID. Question is, correct it, add THRID [sic] ({{sic}}), or ignore it? I'd say leave it corrected per your edit and see what happens. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the NYT and I seriously doubt that they would error in this.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try a search at nytimes.com using the string thrid world'; you will find multiple occurrences of the typo. — Neonorange (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What clarification is needed...

... in this edit? Ah, you can't tell when cardinal directions are being listed if "northest" means "northeast" or "northernmost". If only you used context rather than blindly inserting a template? Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that explanation is that an error exists if it means northwest?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been best if you had clarified that in your original edit, using the "reason" parameter of Template:Clarify. Quoting from the template documentation:
|reason=
Because it may not be immediately apparent to other editors what about the tagged passage is in need of clarification, it is generally helpful to add a brief reason for the tag: {{Clarify|reason=What the problem is}} (this is preferable to using a HTML <!-- comment --> after the tag, as it is tidier to keep all of the {{Clarify}}-related code inside the template). If the explanation would be lengthy, use the article's talk page.}}
As well as being visible in the source code for editors' benefit, the reason parameter is, if provided, displayed when the mouse is hovered over the "clarification needed" link in the article. For technical reasons, this mouse-over feature does not work if the reason text contains double quotes. Use single quotes instead, or use the code &quot; if it is essential to include a double quote.
--Thnidu (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification tag in Vascones

I urge you to stop casting doubts over statements without any judgement, like here. Your record shows an intervention in various articles with no clear criteria, which may come in the category of disrupting editing. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are hunting after me. Does that mean I have become marked by fellow WP administrators and senior editors? There was no question to begin with that the editor could have formed on their own part. There was no need for the original question. Back off.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless change to redirect

Would you mind explaining why you are making pointless minor changes like this and this which are TO redirects? --Calton | Talk 08:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you running a bot? --Calton | Talk 08:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "BOT"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bot" is short for robot, here meaning a script which creates automated edits. The fact you don't know what it is probably indicates you aren't? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "script"? The only thing "automated" about what I do is identifying, through a select search string, a particular sequence of characters or expressions and make the correction. In the matter of "Time Inc." there are several styles in WP, some that are in situations that give the impression they are correct (Time, Inc.) when they are not. So I caution those editors that code the references learn the proper style of citing Time Inc. in order not to place others in a situation of being said to be vandals.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry English is not your native language, but that's not my fault. "Script" means a computer program you write that does editing changes automatically. I was just trying to be helpful by explaining to you the definition of "bot", which we use as shorthand for robot, meaning one writes a program to make his computer automatically do edits for him instead of doing them himself. The original editor Calton asked if this is what you are doing, based on the fact that edits are being made seemingly quicker than a person could do them. Could you please answer the question? Are you doing these edits yourself, looking at the screen, reading text and typing in changes, or did you write a computer program to do it (what "automated" means)?
Also, please be careful using the term "vandal". Editors may disagree with the value or usefulness of some edits, but that doesn't make it vandalism. No one is going to call you a "vandal" over the presence or absence of a comma. I have no interest one way or the other in the nature of the edits Calton is asking about. I just found you because I'm watching the Apollo 8 page and I saw you add the comma there. "No skin off my nose", one way or the other. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In the matter of "Time Inc." there are several styles in WP, some that are in situations that give the impression they are correct (Time, Inc.) when they are not."Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your handle?

Is your handle an attempt to spell "Colonel Sanders" backwards? If so, your spelling is not good; it actually would be "Srednas Lenoloc". JustinTime55 (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: See WP:VPM#Bot operator approval list? – This user is not a native English speaker, and the reversed spelling reflects common pronunciation of the name as well as correct pronunciation of the title. --Thnidu (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept credit for anything that is good but if not then I cannot help you especially when it comes to implications.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to "help me", and as a native speaker of English I find the last half of your sentence ("if not then I cannot help you especially when it comes to implications") meaningless. I was just observing that there is no such person as "Coronel Saunders", whereas Colonel Sanders is quite famous and notable (though dead), with his own Wikipedia page.
Also, here's a Wikipedia tip: When you reply to someone, start each paragraph with one more colon (":") than the person you'r replying to used; this makes an indent structure which clarifies who is responding to whom in a discussion thread. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "CS"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do to find out who Colonel Sanders was, is to click on the blue link on his name and read his page here. He isn't anybody now; he died 35 years ago, and actors play him on TV commercials today. If you don't know who he was, why did you choose that as your handle (user ID name)? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know you and I have a strong idea that I want less acquaintance with you. Are you naturally rude or was it a concerted effort at being trained when you were younger? My family name has developed over several centuries and my parents took particular efforts to pick my name. Leave your insults for those of your own blood since they would be far better at judging your intent. You may say that this is an unnecessary negative reaction. If you find more than less people avoiding you at cocktail parties that there may be a need to change the approach.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to be rude. (Please check out our behavioral guideline WP:Assume good faith.) And also, please do not make personal attacks (and leave our parents out of this), per our policy. I am not insulting you or your family name. Are you trying to say that "Srednuas Lenoroc" is your family name that "has developed over several centuries"? You are under no obligation to use your real name here. I was just struck by the fact that if you spell it backwards, you get "Coronel Saunders", which sounds suspiciously like "Colonel Sanders" and, as User Thnidu has observed above, "the reversed spelling reflects common pronunciation of the name as well as correct pronunciation of the title" which is an error a non-English speaking user is likely to make. I think it's too much of a coincidence to believe that your handle is your real name. And I hope for your sake that a thin skin (that's an English metaphor you'll have to look up) and lack of a sense of humor is not a trait "of your blood", since a spirit of collaboration is required here. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I suspected. I do not know you and I have a strong idea that I want less acquaintance with you. Are you naturally rude or was it a concerted effort at being trained when you were younger? My family name has developed over several centuries and my parents took particular efforts to pick my name. Leave your insults for those of your own blood since they would be far better at judging your intent. You may say that this is an unnecessary negative reaction. If you find more than less people avoiding you at cocktail parties that there may be a need to change the approachSrednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirusho

Hey i was editing Sirusho's article and saw that you recently edited that article. Would you like to join me? We can improve that article together. --MaryMaryMack (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation but all I can claim about my edit is that it was on style rather than content and I know absolutely nothing about the subject otherwise it be a possibility.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I notice your username tries to be Colonel Saunders backwards. The correct spelling of that is "Srednuas Lenoloc". If you are interested, you may wish to change it at Wikipedia:Changing username.--Launchballer 08:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you be interested in knowing how upset one would be if they were told that their name was for something that it is not. Please refrain from your rudeness. And yes, I do understand why you are embarrassed.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A username of User:Coronel Saunders would probably not be allowed at Wikipedia, as it could be interpreted as a joke about Japanese pronunciation. Usernames which are "likely to offend other contributors" or "seem intended to provoke emotional reaction" are not permitted under WP:USERNAME policy, even if slightly obfuscated. I'd recommend changing your username to something like "Srednuas Lenoloc" or "Srednuas", to correct this. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with my birth name and any speculation about it in other nationalities is just that speculation. Leave me be.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you intended the joke, just that other Wikipedia editors who read it that way could be offended by it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to offend you but I really am not interested in speculation as it would seem most any thing could be contrived as such.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gram

Why do you think the the construction "in September of 2015" is ungrammatical? Rmhermen (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a question for the WP developers of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates_and_years where in the style of "MONTH of YEAR" is specifically identified as unacceptable style. I do have to admit that it is a quaint style. I would not want to speculate what I do not know for certain although it probably had its place in literature produced by the "paid by the word" authors but I imagine being concise is what may be the motivation for the WP hierarchy. The numbers do bear out that "MONTH of YEAR" is very sparsely used in WP as compared "MONTH YEAR". And if in WP the past tense of "broadcast" is not "broadcasted" then those in the know can determine to their fulfillment what style they wish for WP. But if ever there comes a time that those in the know want discussion on "MONTH of YEAR" I would be interested in reviewing what is posted to get a better understanding of the British/American mind when it comes to language expressions.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Lrednuas Senoroc

You appear to have an 'impersonator', Lrednuas Senoroc (talk · contribs). 220 of Borg 16:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an impersonator. This is my username. I have found it by making substantial changes to some other username (chosen by chance on wikipedia). --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should I choose another name?--Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lrednuas Senoroc, as it greatly resembles the editor of this talk page (only the first letters are swapped) that may be a good idea. See WP:Changing username. 220 of Borg 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will think of a new name soon. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an impersonator was someone that would issue statements or actions under someone else's authority. I know that it is early in the day but I have yet to see that or the need to have someone change their username. I do not hold the patent on arrangement of letters and would hope that those that champion the idea that this is a bad situation would desist if in fact nothing untoward has occurred. Why go looking for trouble? So much fuss over nothing.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't care either way, but it would be fairly easy to mix you two up wouldn't it? I am the only '220 of Borg' on WP, if a '220 Of Borg' were to start editing WP, I might be concerned! 220 of Borg 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would be concerned about getting things mixed up as it were if say someone was a medical physician but as for name I know of a family that has such a common first name in each generation, and sometimes in each of those several times, that is so common that every possible form has been used then comes the nick name forms and then the association by who says what form of name. If adopting usernames is in such an intellectual environment such as this I expect people to have the frame of mind to remain correct regardless as to how little they want to pay attention to detail such as what is someone's user name. If it is expected that grammar is to be followed then why not the ability to remember. Anything short is just plain putting potential fault on someone else. A bit harsh but less has been the campaign of some issues in WP. And there are many other more superior issues that I would be so taken by debate as to be on a level of being a personal affront. This all reminds me of my brother that has made it in life his the role of being a needle in a haystack--he neither improves his existence by being a pain or increase the value of the hay. What time there is a need to interact with him is kept to a minimum and what time used is considered a grace.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't have to remember to use correct grammar, though, so that analogy isn't very helpful. I have to say that when I saw Lrednuas Senoroc for the first time, I thought it was you. The similarity is pretty close given how many usernames are lodged in my memory. I would think it best if Lrednuas changed his username to avoid possible confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour the point, but this is an issue that I have no desire to pursue and as I get, as part of my participation in WP, notices about this action I certainly would wish that those that do hold an interest take it elsewhere for expression. I have no control over any one's ability to remember, be confused or the means by which they have exposure to many user names. I want no part of something that is not of my making. Again, take it elsewhere. No participant in WP should be subject to actions that do not concern them. I have no control over what happens with this talk page although my username/birth name is attached and as such gives what statements appear some sense of representing me in particular situations. And I stand by my statement that some people need to remember what is proper grammar. I do hope that is the end of this discussion on this page.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to add to the vebosity of the discourse, but the user under discussion has been blocked for the very object of my initial concern. Regards 220 of Borg 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound uncooperative as more could be said but I remain uninterested especially as the situation seemed to concern maliciousness rather than user name, and even concerning user name I would have remained uninterested. I did not have to be involved as I have no administrative power in WP. Not a challenge but end of me being contacted about this.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srednuas Lenoroc, I have just rolled back some changes you made to spelling on clasps to the Naval General Service Medal of 1847. Various editors have gone to great lengths to ensure that the clasps in the article reproduce exactly the spelling the Admiralty used. There are several other clasps where the Admiralty's usage does not conform with current practice. Please don't change them. We are striving for accuracy, in part because if someone finds such a medal and clasp we would like them to be able to search the clasp as it appears, and find the article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article coding indicate this. Otherwise you will find it happening with those that do not know.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. The article on the clasps has the following message at the top of the list of clasps, once you go into edit mode:

"Please do not alter the contents of this table unless you are sure of your information. ALL CLASP NAMES, DATES OF ACTION, AND NUMBERS AWARDED *HAVE BEEN VERIFIED* AGAINST ONE OR MORE SOURCES. ANY MISTAKES OR INCONSISTENCIES, whether in terms of spelling, punctuation, or discrepancies between clasp names and actual date of action, WERE MADE IN 1847 by those responsible for the medal; please do not alter the clasp."

I will add this to the article on the medals themselves. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No fun allowed

I just wanted to make a quick note on why I reverted you since I accidentally forgot to put in a message. In the context of the article, the gang is a group, and your change focused on a "he", so it was correct before. Also something to watch for your edits in general: "enjoy time" is a more serious and long-term phrase, while "having fun" is more merry so the meaning can be changed slightly. Or a lot like here... Happy editing. 05:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Langeskov may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Table: Population of Langeskov<ref>[http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?Maintable=BEF44&PLanguage=1

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

Just a quick heads up that "was previously" is unnecessary in many cases. I can buy the argument that "used to be" might be considered a little informal, but often "was" will suffice on its own. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mthr cod.

Wht the matr. Plz tell how i upload new wiki? Abl-cok (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit query

Hi. Regarding this edit to History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I presume that you made a mistake with the "The-playing heroes included" wording, but I'm not sure what you had in mind so I don't know how to correct it. Could you take another look? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "once again"?

Hello. You seem to have removed the phrase once again (or similar) from a number of articles. What is your objection to it? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is it necessary to convey the idea that not only has something happened by saying "again" with the addition of "once" and then there is the phrase "this time" which goes to re-reiterate once again something has happened. It is a bit repetitive. "This time" alone conveys the oidea that something happened previously. Anything more is just begs the statement.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another phrase: "returns once again, this time". I guess who ever wrote it did not realize that "turn" is an action, "re" means that it has occurred before. But then when joined by "once" and "again" and "this time" all led to something having had happened and happening again. Is it not more succinct to say "return(s) (ed), this time"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding what the phrases like "once again" mean. They're used when a series of similar events has occurred, and signifies to the reader that "yes, what has happened once or twice or however many times before is indeed happening again". I don't doubt that there are places in WP where those phrases are used incorrectly, but in most of the articles I looked at they are being used correctly. In addition, just removing the phrase without make other changes to the sentence can sometimes make the sentence sound strange. Indyguy (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, since you are used to a particular way, are not aware just how confusing are these phases since they can in the wildest context "something having had happened and happening again". In the example cited once is extraneous since again indicates that it has happened previously. You very well may be too close to what is being critiqued to be willing to understand that it is extraneous and redundant.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't = cannot

Just a quick heads up that the contraction "can't" should generally be changed to "cannot" rather than "can not". I notice that you are making lots of contraction-related changes right now, so I thought I would point this out while it is still possible for you to backtrack and fix this one. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference? They are both negatives but not consistent with shortening of a two word phrase.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest difference that one style (cannot) is much, much more common and modern - except in cases where we are pointing out the ability to not do something ("you can eat or you can not eat). With that said, I was virtually certain that the WP Manual of Style specified a preference for cannot over can not, but I can't find any such statement in the MOS. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation as I can only follow through with what little I know and what seems common sense which may not always be within the rules of English although a statement will be thought of as illogical yet its use probably because that is what people think when the phrase is said they internally understand the point. I would never use the phrase because the language I use is not so complicated. So if people find what I have written is against some rule or policy they should post it instead of saying that something "sounds" better. I am not into the sound of a statement, I am into the logic.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I share your preference for "can not", but I have to admit that almost all writers in both American and British English seem to prefer to use "cannot" except in the circumstances mentioned above. Milton used "cannot", and the King James bible contains only one instance of "can not" compared with more then a hundred usages of "cannot". Similarly, Shakespeare used "can not" just twice in his works, compared with about seven hundred uses of "cannot". (I think the texts I searched were reasonably early and not modern reprints.) Dbfirs 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short space of time

Wwill you please stop running through articles changing the correct and usual "short space of time" for the unused formation "short period of time"., Short space is correct, as per [1], [2], [3], [4], and even [5]. It is wikipedia policy not to change things that are correct just because you prefer a different usage. Please stop. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You assume too much and for that I am not at fault. If there were special rules for a particular English sating then it should have been pointed pout from the beginning instead you decide to issue derogatory statements. I would assume this behaviour will not be a custom.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume nothing, I am merely going by your earlier comment: "Thank you for the invitation but all I can claim about my edit is that it was on style rather than content and I know absolutely nothing about the subject" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You assume too much of others knowing your language and its inconsistencies. That is to what I refer about derogatory remarks.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Obtained employment" to "was employed"

I appreciate your edits of obviously inappropriate words and typos, including some real clangers, but be careful not to change the meanings of statements - by changing "In 1949 his father obtained employment in X" to "In 1949 his father was employed in X", you are changing the underlying meaning from "his father started this job in 1949" to "his father either started or already had this job in 1949". I can't see any benefit to introducing such vagueness, and "his father obtained employment" does not strike me as being in any way incorrect.

(If you're actually making a factual correction and the source says that Cliff Richard's father started his job before 1949, please give a clearer edit summary than "edit". But I'm guessing from your edit history that you're just searching for the word "obtained" across many articles and editing out any that strike you as inappropriate.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrino

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've changed one of your edits. "Are the identical particle" is rather awkward phrasing – although "same" and "identical" are synonyms, they can't always be used interchangeably. I come in wikipeace, Me, Myself & I (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-lost

I am sorry but that phrase you have been adding to a lot of wrestling articles does not make sense at all.  MPJ-US  20:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gram

Using the word "back" is not a grammatical issue so stop claiming it is. Your obsession is beyond stupid. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using back is inconsistent with the statement. Sorry, you are wrong.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When all these different people keep telling you you don't know jack about grammar, maybe there's some truth to that. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of inappropriate language has been reported.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no excuse for inappropriate language, but please note that "dropped" is not the same as "dropped back" in any race. Dbfirs 18:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record of discussion:

Inappropriate language use by Ribbon Salminen[edit]

In recent editing "Ribbon Salminen" has decided that it was appropriate to react in the following ways that certainly are not consistent with the friendly environment that editing is portrayed as being within the WP effort. Is it appropriate based on this person's actions that an appropriate sanction be levied; otherwise it will appear that such action is sanctioned by WP.

Examples: The American Wolves ‎ (Undid revision 711207536 by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) bs, less words the better) (current) Cibernético ‎ (Undid revision 711207343 by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) bs, less words the better) (current) Shingo Takagi ‎ (Undid revision 711191265 by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) gram my ass) Bad Luck Fale ‎ (rv silly obsession of getting rid of the word "back")

{This appeared on the Srednuas Lenoroc talk page "...you don't know jack about grammar ..."]

These incidents seem to derive from editing wrestling articles that "Ribbon Salminen" believes that in the present terse expression that championships that are lost and won should use the word back to connect them rather than establish appropriate separate subparts for each statement.

Since the issue has already been brought to my attention in the tea room, I hope that there is not an air of retribution to be experience by bringing these incidents to the attention of WP?

I am particularly concerned that not being a "native" speaker that my concerns are not recognized by those that are.

Although, the following is a subpart of the issue I do stand that the terse wording of many of the statements that I have edited could be better expressed so that many more of those people that consult WP articles will not be confused particularly if they are not native speakers. The loosing and the winning of a title would be best expressed by distinct statements probably connected with an appropriate conjunction but "X lost the title back to Y" makes it appear that the loss was returned to the winner. Instead of "Ribbon Salminen" taking the derogatory road it should have been more forthcoming in explianing. That would be the friendly WP path. Instead "Ribbon Salminen" just brought about more discontent. That is certainly not good and inappropriate.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) This is just silly. You got your feelings hurt on the internet? Toughen up. This guy is a grammar police who has repeatedly been told by numerous editors that he's wrong in his supposed "gram" edits. Yeah, maybe it's not particularly nice to tell someone that they don't know "jack" about what they're talking about, but I stand by that comment and I think his lack of grammar knowledge is evident. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Indeed. There's nothing to stop one using profanity on Wikipedia. The examples provided are also rather mild cases of its usage. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC) I suggest the OP start talking and collaborating with other editors so he can grow a little thicker skin. Of the nearly 21K edits he's made, less than one percent are to talk and user talk pages. While we require civility, the project is not censored, and Ribbon's comments are neither personal attacks nor harassment. He's not required to be friendly to you. Katietalk 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC) So would it be offensive to you Ribbon that you know jack about civility? I would stand by that if your response is yes, you do not know jack about civility. You have said offensive things in a face to face conversation probably would not be said on the grounds of being civil. You should return to school or at least your parents upbringing to learn so.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC) "We should all be civil. Also YOU HAVE TERRIBLE PARENTS AND SCHOOLING." Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Well, this complaint would not have been lodged without someone prompting uncivility and being absent of contriteness for their personal and unnecessary digression.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Timothyjosephwood" I should have known your statement was an attempt at humour that follows your philosophy about positivism.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Had I not commented, I would have closed this thread. I am therefore requesting that this be carried out (administrator status need not matter so long as the editor is not involved). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC) And surprise you do not appreciate grammar police? Is not that what you are doing?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Had I not commented, I would have closed this thread. I am therefore requesting that this be carried out (administrator status need not matter so long as the editor is not involved). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC) And surprise you do not appreciate grammar police? Is not that what you are doing?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Srednuas Lenoroc, who are you addressing with that comment? Regardless, calling other editors the "grammar police" is not acceptable. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Ches--if your statement is correct then it should never have been said by the offender?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) I am confused. I have not referred to you in such a manner. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Is it not an Americanism--you cannot have it both ways; say something should not be said yet it had already been said previously.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC) I have not referred to you as the "grammar police" within this thread, or anywhere for that matter. Please don't make false accusations. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC) You must be confused because when did I say that you said it originally? My statements stand on their own.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC) My apologies. I was confused and I had presumed you were replying to me. I have striked my comments. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Well, your presumption is accept but that is not the problem. Someone's else's presumption is, something that is not a credit to themselves or others that take on cooperating in WP with responsibility. Using inappropriate language regardless how mild or base should always be avoided, especially by someone that feels they do not have to explain things to others and instead make personal attacks. The anonymity of the internet is not an excuse for uncivility.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Profanity can sometimes make one come across as aggressive, but that's far from actuality in this case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC) What someone does can tell you so much about their inner character.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


Grammar

Hi Srednuas. Thank you for taking an interest in improving the grammar on Wikipedia. We want our articles to be well written and grammatically sound. However, I've had to revert some of your recent good faith edits because, to be generous, the case for change was not clear cut. For example, the word "payed" (as opposed to "paid") is correct when used in the sense of paying out a rope or chain. The phrase "a lot of" was accepted as early as 1965 by Fowler's Modern English Usage and does not need to be replaced by "many". When you make widespread changes across the encyclopaedia, do be sure that there is a clear cut case for them, that they are necessary (and not just preferred phraseology) as well as grammatically accurate. If in doubt there are other editors who I'm sure will help you. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srednuas Lenoroc, it sounds like you need to do some work with your people skills and try to work constructively with other editors. I suggest you think about participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors where you might find other Wikipedia editors who share your concerns about grammar in the project. It always helps to have another experienced editor you can check in with who share your editing interests. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that after being insulted I am of the mind to accept "advice from others on WP? Sometimes it is best to leave others be instead of what appears to be bullying. Give me a break.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little unfair that because someone insults you, you effectively spread the blame to other, polite and helpful, editors by refusing to listen to and work with them. Liz is trying to be constructive and help you so go on, why not give it a go? Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the lack of my "people" skills that caused the situation. So please do not send messengers that insult me then ask as if all is well. Please go away with that attitude. I would assume that she is not involved with the mental health industry with that type of resolution approach.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And not to belabour the point but not everyone is as invested in WP as are you and others that have been accepted to the level that you are and with the introduction that I have experience by that lot I am not compelled. This may be difficult for you and others to understand or accept and probably is viewed with some hostility. There seems to be a degree of hostility emanating from WP participants that when it is brought to their attention it is meet with further hostility as would be an outsider. Again, I do not expect for you to understand that or have the ability to accept it. Someone communicated in an inappropriate manner and not only did that person continue to do so but seemed to revel in it with the further support of that person's peers. They are speaking on behalf of WP regardless whether WP acknowledges it. All I can say is that ass long as "Ribbon" is in it's native land then there is no need to worry about just how people in Japan would receive or react to outbursts similar to what I have experienced.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've never come across "Liz" before, so you're reading too much into our attempts to help. Yes, you will find some very irritating and aggressive editors on Wikipedia. It reflects an imperfect world. Best to stay cool and not to play their game. Work with those who are more polite and constructive, follow the rules and you can achieve a lot. Bermicourt (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discontinue with this discussion as it ridiculous for their to be a WP statement about civility yet someone not sustaining that policy who has been conferred influence by the various WP distinctions that are awarded internally upon others. When these people are allowed to not follow the rules and are encouraged by others of similar distinction--it does not make well much of situation to accept "advice" from anyone. If you have these "credentials" then it just appears that this is what WP wants the public to understand about how the project functions. Regardless if that is official or not that is what is being presented. If WP is not willing to reign in this type of inappropriate action then WP has to understand that it imparts a negative image of the project regardless of how much "good" do others. It is interesting that during the process to find out just where such behavior should be reported I was warned about potential retribution should I follow through. This does not impress me with a very positive view especially when someone makes a statement that they then later parse or retract.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are not encouraging, or even condoning, the lack of civility. Repeated behaviour of the type that you encountered on another page is likely to result in censure, but the occasional slip is often overlooked because we are all human, and we are all volunteers here. Similarly, an argumentative rather than the preferred co-operative approach is often overlooked unless it becomes disruptive. I happen to agree with most of your edits, but please don't be offended if other editors revert one or two of them. We all have to put up with that. Dbfirs 12:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting direct quotations

If a quotation from a work of fiction is using idiosyncratic spelling, this may be intentional eye dialect - please check before "correcting" it. The story in question uses the incorrect "ao" spelling for all of that character's dialogue. --McGeddon (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is so trajic. All those people!Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? --McGeddon (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know; i's crazy! How sad.

Using {{sic}}

"(sic)" means, as the template says, that "unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source". If you're unable to check the original text and want to flag a typo that has been introduced somewhere along the line (maybe just by the editor who was typing it up), you can add a question mark to the template ({{sic|?}}). Typos in straight Wikipedia prose should never be flagged as such, though, because they aren't quotes.

Note also that "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment [...] unless the slip is textually important", though, per MOS:QUOTE.

Wikipedia:Typo Team has some useful ideas and links. --McGeddon (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--All , mental agility comes in all levels so what you may deem trivial could be for another something quite legendary. If you wish I may find it more cooperative to your efforts to no longer contribute what I have in the past in the future. Nothing personal, just your inability to understand others that are not of your same life.

If it helps to encourage you, I've looked at your recent edits and agree with all of them with one exception of editing vandalism when it should have been reverted (but we all make that mistake sometimes), and one isolated edit where you changed "who" to "whom" when it was the subject of the sentence (but used passively). I'd recommend that you keep up the good work. Please don't take the occasional criticism personally. We all make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from them. Dbfirs 06:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea who are you and know that within WP there is a board that upper echelons communicate amongst yourselves. But whatever it ids that you just wrote is confusing. May I suggest that you learn to make your statements simple and work from there. That is the problem with those that believe in their skills set without reserve and manage to put together a vegetable chicken soup without the main ingredient--comprehensibility. There are phrases in use that the logic has some sense to be acceptable only because the users have grown up in such a system.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea who you are either, but I'm just an ordinary editor who was trying to be encouraging. Please let me know which sentence you don't understand. Dbfirs 11:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some erroneous edits

I have fixed some of your erroneous edits, such as this one, which created a red citation error (scroll to the bottom of the page to see it). Please refrain from adding {{sic}} and similar templates to the |title= parameter of citations. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: don't do this please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"To be" vs "as"

Hi there. Quite a lot of your replacements of "to be" with "as" are incorrect, and the rest of them are matters of personal preference. I am going to have to go back and revert you because you introduced quite a lot of grammatical errors. It almost looks like you did a find-and-replace, which is completely inappropriate unless you are examining each instance to see if it's correct. As I see others have left similar comments, I have to ask that you stop making what you perceive to be corrections to grammar, because you don't seem to have the skill necessary. If you persist, you may lose your editing privileges. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. 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]

AN/I discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]