User talk:203.94.135.134

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Please stop it

The phrase "Commonwealth English" means little or nothing from the linguist's standpoint. Please stop it. And Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth. --JackLumber 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, I know about JackLumber. Jack is not very diplomatic (at least with me), and often calls my linguistic knowledge faulty, even about Australian English and its spelling, even though I am a Australian wikipedian and I have been through the Australian eduction system, Jack does not aknowledge the fact that many of us Australians do think of "Australian spelling" and "British spelling" as the same (in terms of standard practice). We are taught in school that Australian spelling is not American spelling but are vitually never taught that "British spelling" is any different from it (we even get taught that -ize is "American spellling"). Thus although we know that Australian English is not British English, we tend not to think the same of spelling. Example of such responses are:

  • "You should know Australian English is *not* British English [well I knew that for sure], and that Australian spelling is *not* British spelling"
  • "And -or spellings were somewhat popular in C19 Australia, didn't you know?" Why not "did you know?" instead of "didn't you know?"?

Myrtone

[edit] Retracting

I appreciated your recent edits. Good. Keep wiki-in', JackLumber 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for aging/ageing tip

... though see my comments on the discussion page. Best, BrianinStockholm 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky edits

Don't try to sneak edits in, as you did in this sequence: [1] [2] ("rv: my changes"). Discuss controversial edits or get consensus for them. Trying to game Wikipedia is not acceptable. —Michael Z. 2006-06-06 17:20 Z

You are dead wrong in assuming it was a sneaky edit. I thought I'd change my edit back and at the same time felt the change should be made to the Canadian one too, because I figured no Canadian would spell 'computer programme', but there would be some who would spell 'training programme', but the majority of Canadians would spell 'training program'. These differences are just to show that computer program is never spelt 'computer programme', but training program could be spelt 'training programme'. By just having 'program, programme', it is implying that computer program in Canada can be spelt 'computer programme' and is an acceptable variant of 'computer program'. 203.94.135.134 03:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you summarize your edits in the future. Your speculation about Canadian spelling aren't supported by the Canadian Oxford dictionary. Do you have a source to support this? —Michael Z. 2006-06-07 05:41 Z
I do summarise my edits most of the time when required. So are you saying that in common Canadian usage that computer program can be spelt 'computer programme'? 203.94.135.134 07:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, cited as the source for the information in the article, says that program and programme are both used for all of the word's meanings. I have personal experience with a Canadian organization whose style guide used 'programme' for all meanings. How common it is in use, we don't know without some source to back it up.
If your assertion is not speculation, then please back it up with a source. Perhaps the Oxford Spelling Dictionary or some style guide would have more insight on this usage. —Michael Z. 2006-06-08 00:31 Z
You still did not answer my question satisfactory, just a yes or no will do. I'll ask it again: In common Canadian usage the words computer program can be spelt as both 'computer program' and 'computer programme'? And as such, I assume you have seen the spelling 'computer programme' in documents — such as at your company — in newspapers and magazines? 203.94.135.134 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

If everybody were to post a {{citation needed}} tag every time they run into something they don't know, then what's an encyclopedia for? Additionally, your edits consist almost exclusively of petty or sometimes disrupting "contributions" about such small-time issues as spelling, not to mention that you are clearly keeping tabs on me. Your attitude borders on WP:HAR, so you might want to change it. JackLumber. 12:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really care about the improvement of WP and its article, you cannot just say "I still prefer that version," "I made reasonable edits," and so on---you have to prove what you are maintaining, you have to account for your edits; if the "edit summary" space is not enough, use the talk page. But your current demeanor is not only harassing---it's unacceptable. JackLumber. 23:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So you don't give a damn about what you're told. Again, you can't say "this is better," "I prefer that," etc. I often run into pages where words appear that wouldn't have been my preferred choices, but I respect the word choice of the original editor, if it's correct and appropriate. JackLumber. 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I now have to respond. You never leave anything alone, you change words, sentences, etc to always suit your preferences.
Look who's talking. Now it's crystal clear---you are in bad faith. I change words and sentences written by others ONLY to add information and/or correct mistakes or imperfections, not to impose my word choice on others. On the other hand, you hang out here just to waste your and our time on meaningless matters such as spelling, engaging in spats or revert wars with other editors (not just me), with *no* really useful contributions to the encyclopedia, but rather disruption. (See the program-programme run-in.) Very mean of you. And your UK-Britain change was totally unjustified, it did not add any information, nor did it correct mistakes or imperfections, see below. It was just sheer speculation, just like the Canadian program or many of your edits to the Manual of Style (spelling) page. Not to mention that you surreptitiously dismiss as rubbish what other people point out to you. JackLumber.
If you feel I'm harassing you then I apologise, all I was doing is correcting what are errors.
No, they are not errors, any. There's right smart of crap on Wikipedia, why don't you start cleaning that up, why do you have it in for me? For example, the notation "UK, orig. AUS" doesn't mean a thing; it suggests the idiom is not used anymore in Australia, which is false. ("Global, orig. USA" means that an idiom originated and is still used in the U.S. Note that it is possible for a lexical item to originate in one region, and then die there and survive elsewhere; there are many examples, say, in the American regional vernacular, but also in standard English.) A more appropriate notation would be "orig. AUS, now esp. UK," but it still needs sources. You can't keep tabs on the contrib page of another user just to screw up his work; a few of your edits indeed can be regarded as vandalism. JackLumber.
If the information you use is always sourced then please include the sorces, esp when it concerns Australia and as an Australian I know what we use here (punctuation, spelling, etc).
The sources are duly listed at the bottom of the page, so there's no need to "include" them. But, apparently, you usually don't provide source when you edit a page, unless you are explicitly requested to do so, and that's not the way it works. And if you don't know something, please use the talk page just like everybody else, don't post a {{fact}} tag. JackLumber.
Something like 'Up the Duff' is hardly ever heard here in Australia and is considered a British Idiom, not Australian even if it did originate here – which I still doubt.
Oh, I'm so sorry, how could I possibly figure that your knowledge is greater than that of Oxford lexicographers? I don't care much about *Australian* consideration per se, even assuming you are representative of Australian consideration. The article has a global scope and is supposed to consider the big picture. JackLumber.
My change of 'Britain' to 'the UK' was a reasonable edit, now whose being "petty". Using 'UK' is more desirable than using 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' in Wikipedia (considered more correct), not just by me but other Editor too.
Too bad nobody from the UK has ever changed it---you did change it, and you're not even British. UK *is* a better choice in a newspaper or an official document or an article about politics and the like, but in this context Britain is perfectly acceptable---the "sources" (written by British, American, and Australian people) use it all the time, so why shouldn't we? If you just pay a little attention you'll find that Britain and UK are used interchangeably in my version. Please note that in modern usage Britain and Great Britain mean two different things---Britain is short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." JackLumber. 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

203.94.135.134 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reported my argument with JackLumber (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) here. Earlier this year, Jack was blocked by Samuel Blanning (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) for violating 3RR (which by coincidence is also a Melbourne radio station). I appreciate your support. Myrtone:-)

Oh no, not again... JackLumber. 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Mr. stalker...

The electricity pylon thing is kinda tricky. Dictionaries are not really helpful on this one; even many U.S. dictionaries list this meaning of pylon with no regional tag, so my remarks were primarily based on google tests and, as far as U.S. and Canadian usage, personal experience (yes, =original research but hell, it's just a dab page...). Anyways, the google electricity pylons / transmission towers ratio is 1:662 on .gov sites, 1:46 on .edu sites, 1:83 in Canada, 1:55 in Australia, and, strikingly, 66:1 in the UK—which is why I flagged this usage as distinctively "British." UNT, JackLumber. 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Hey, I'm perfectly comfortable with your wikistalking, as long as you don't create havoc. At least, someone is thinking of me on the other side of the world. And that's fine.

[edit] More

Hey 203, I was *not* sarcastic. I just tried to be fine. You shouldn't backtalk like that. "I hope you don't stick around," that was mean and most unjustified. As they say on TV, what's your problem? Tell me, do you believe in cooperation? FYI, I do. Do you really want me to leave? JackLumber. 12:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I said I was being sarcastic *not* you Jack. You can do what ever you want, stay, go, whatever. Trying to be fine with things and not let them worry you is a good thing. I'll take your advice on board and try to improve myself, thankyou. 203.94.135.134 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What I said is that, although you were being sarcastic, my previous message was _not_ sarcastic—and that's why your reply sounded inexcusably sassy. JackLumber. 12:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And I didn't take it as sarcasm. Just perceived it as an attack, and as such I decided to be a prick, but anyway lets move on. 203.94.135.134 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK mister, let's bury the hatchet. May I offer you a choc chip cookie? JackLumber. 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget I'm a smartass!
Don't forget I'm a smartass!

[edit] Ah thanks

Re St Albans - I think I'd probably converted a few too many infoboxes that day. Thanks for that. :) Orderinchaos78 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/3/User_talk%7E203.94.135.134.html"