User talk:JackLumber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User_talk:JackLumber/Archive1 (through July 2006)

Jack is fixin' to hit the road and he likely won't come back no more. JackLumber. 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that's not true. Nil illegitimi carborundum. I thought you may wish to comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_30 on the "List of Trinidadian English terms" debate. It's beginning to look like some editor/admins are deciding that the WP:NOT policy excludes lists of words simiilar to the ones we have been working on, wanting them transwikied to individual entries per word in Wiktionary (which I think would be wrong). Anyway, if you do go, "May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, and may the sun shine warm upon your face" Best. WLD 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

It is inappropriate to redirect your talk elsewhere, so I have removed it. Blank this page if you will, but please don't redirect it. violet/riga (t) 07:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter to him if he's gone? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 12:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

Exactly, so why would it matter that it's not a redirect? And when I did this he hadn't given notice of leaving. Indeed, he still made a couple of edits after saying he was leaving. violet/riga (t) 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good morning, everybody. I just said I was fixing to leave. JackLumber. 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So you won't be? Good. violet/riga (t) 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

Dear Jack, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Despite I've never had the pleasure of talking to you until now, dear Jack, I really think the best gift that my RfA has given me is to meet people like you, as I see that you're a great editor and an awesome person. From this day on, I also consider you my friend, and I'd be happy and honored if you accept me as your own. Please take good care, and ttyl! :) With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

[edit] Regarding your reversions in the Power Station article

JackLumber: I really don't care whether the article uses "British Isles" or "United Kingdom" ... it is a trivial point. But what I do care about is that differences of opinion should be aired on the article's Discussion page which is there for just that purpose. Continually reverting and debating via the edit "Summary" is the wrong thing to do. I am particulary offended by your edit "Summary" on August 15th that read "f**k" it". Please stop using the edit "Summary" as your soapbox and for profanity. - mbeychok 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK

OK - I have been attempting to edit the article on American English. Essentially the article argues that the greater range of accents in the eastern US vis-a-vis the western US is due to imitation of prestidgous forms of British English. While I acknowledge that there are MANY facotrs influencing the development of regional accents, the single greatest cause of language divergence is isolation. I specifically discount the imitation of British prestidgous British pronounciation because as little as 50 years after Jamestown, people begin to remark about colonial accents and the like and by 1776 there is clearly an 'American' accent.

If you take 20 people who speak English, split them into two groups and continue to isolate those two groups for 1000 years, odds are their progeny will speak two different languages. Essentially only two developments and the general increase in literacy have changed the pace of language divergence. The first was the printing press which standardized lexicon and syntax. The second was modern media, which was essentially the radio but of course the television cannot be ignored. This invention permits people to actually listen to a 'standard' form of the language over distances that in pre-industrial eras used to be isolated from each other. The longer any given area is in isolation the more language divergence you will see. In medieval times, isolation was much more common and we see this effect in the modern forms of English as spoken on the British isles. Considering the size of the UK its difficult to imagine how such language divergence could occur until you consider the length of time these areas were isolated from each other (really, people didn't travel like they do today, there is no interstate!) before the advent of the printing press and before the advent of modern media. In the case of Germany, the issue becomes even clearer: cross the Alps from Baden Wurtemburg into Switzerland and you travel from one German dialect to another that can't understand the others dialect.

Furthermore, while the word dialect is technically correct, the term accent is more descriptive in this case. The distinction between British English and American English and the various varieties really don't rise to the level of a different dialect in my view because the various forms are mutually intelligible, the spelling, syntax and grammar differences are relatively insignificant.

Nevertheless I have attempted to edit this article on several occasions and it continues to be edited back. I finally logged on and created a username. I went to the edit page and it acknowledges my theory but says that it should go up for discussion first. I am not particularly familiar with this system. But really this change should be made.

[edit] Thanks Jack

Hi Jack.

Just a quick thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've just been dipping my toe in the water so far, but I'm keen to contribute more when I get the chance. Will be sure to contact you if I have any problems. Cheers! Parkingtigers 17:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help disambiguating

Hello, you commented on Talk:Athletics regarding the movement of that page, and so I was hoping you could help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move. All the wikilinks to Athletics must now be disambiguating to one of the more specific links. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The list of articles linking to Athletics can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Athletics. Regards. -- Jeff3000 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Thanks for ending the nightmare on Talk:Backing vocalist with the voice of reason and science! Did you ever see my comments and questions addressed to you there? Could you please help prevent someone who's either a hyphen fetishist or perhaps just loves debating from making WP disregard established usage among English-speaking linguists as shown on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Finland-Swedish. Thanks! --Espoo 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. What new points do you have for me? I just renominated the category rename Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Finland-Swedish --Espoo 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit portal

Hi

I find it very disturbing and depressing that huge amounts of WP editing time are wasted on unnecessary and clearly amateur discussions of naming and spelling issues. Being a linguist, you of course realise that almost all discussions on language use by normal people make fools of almost all participants, and they waste a very large part of editing efforts on WP. I'm getting so fed up with this nonsense that i'd like to ask you what you think about the idea of setting up a copyedit portal or copyedit emergency squad to get some sanity and professionalism into this completely amateur aspect of WP. See Talk:Académie française and Talk:Genealogy#reverts_of_WP:OR.2C_private_.28conspiracy.29_theories.2C_and_other_nonsense for more details... --Espoo 09:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Espoo, that's a damn good idea. I wish I had some more time---I'd join your project stat. Just to help throw some anarchy out the window. I hope to be back soon. UNT, JackLumber. 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support. If you have a few minutes, please add a quick comment at the urgent case on Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move, which will shut down soon and where fears of upsetting a prominent sacred cow's unscientific attitude towards language are being used to set a precedent for not using well-known and widely used English versions of foreign names in article titles. I hope a linguist's comment will help an admin think twice about counting votes without weighting them. So if you decide to vote, please mention you're a linguist. Here we have a case of chaos being produced by pseudo-intellectuals including some university publishers... --Espoo 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WT: chill

You and Connel are arguing at cross-purposes. He was wrong to have reverted your edits to résumé, but edit warring and arguing with him isn't going to accomplish anything. If you back off, he'll probably calm down, and we can all get back to the business of improving the dictionary. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie/archive-2006-12&diff=next&oldid=1849587 --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improperly transwikified

The summary of your 21:54, 28 November 2006 edit of Glossary of Canadian English words reads "rv/illegal 3-day poll, no real consensus, improperly transwikified, cf. Australian English vocabulary". Are you pointing to Australian English vocabulary as an example of how this should be done or as another example of how not to do it? If it is the latter and you don't mind my asking, what, in your view, was done improperly? Jimp 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ... P.S. Did some digging around & this is what I found. I s'pose that this is what you mean by "improperly transwikied". Jimp 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. I thought the page should stay put pending a proper, convenient "wiktionarization." And I was under the impression that this article was kinda railroaded in that which seems to be a WP:WINAD/WP:AfD spree going on right now. It is reasonable that the Canadian page and the Australian page receive the same treatment. JackLumber. 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable, yes, and had it receive the same maybe it'd happily be in the Wiktionary appendices with its good Aussie friend instead of being up for deletion from the main namespace over there. It probably will be deleted from Wiktionary and this being the case I think you're right that the page should stay put until it can be transwikied properly. Jimp 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Labor" in Australian English

Just saw a discussion way back in May with Myrtone. As an Australian with university education I'm not sure I agree with many of his points, but one of interest was your reference to the "Australian Labor Party". Re that one the article King O'Malley is interesting:

O'Malley's other legacy was the spelling of "Labor" in the Australian Labor Party's title in the American style. He was a spelling reform enthusiast and persuaded the party that "Labor" was a more "modern" spelling than "Labour." Although the American spelling has not become established in Australia, Labor has preserved the spelling.

I do agree with you that Australian and British English are distinct - although broadly speaking one follows the other's conventions, there are many cases (eg "ae", "oe") where both are acceptable. It's very inconsistent indeed - eg an average Australian would use the words encyclopedia, foetus and paedophile with those spellings. -ise and -ize are used probably 50/50 but official Australian English uses -ise (although the Macquarie gives -ize as a second correct spelling in every instance in its listings), and -or is *never* used in Australia except for the spelling of the ALP as above. Australia also follows the British date format although I've seen many people write the month first. And with word usage - we follow US in some and UK in others. Amusingly, New Zealand often reverses our choice - eg we use "freeway" and they use "motorway", but then we use "mobile phones" and they use "cell phones"!! All very interesting.

And the word "programme" - Australians have settled for utter inconsistency. There's actually a distinction in meaning these days, present in many style guides (I used to write closed captions for Australian TV) between "programme", more like an agenda or set list of events at a function, and "program" referring to computer software or a unit of production in TV or radio. Orderinchaos78 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

British spelling and Australian spelling look pretty much the same—differences are chiefly a matter of relative frequencies (e.g. in the Australian Corpus of English, Macquarie University, -ise outnumbers -ize by a ratio of 3:1; in the British National Corpus, the ratio is 3:2) and the same holds true for grammar. But don't forget that the Australian lexicon features *a lot* of distinctive words and usages that set it apart from both British and American English! Example: David Williamson's The Removalists was retitled "The Moving Men" in New York and "The Removal Men" in London. (Not to mention the famous -o and -ie words: compo, servo, barbie, bikkie...) While many of these words are also used across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand English has actually remained more similar to British English, and this is generally attributed to 1) New Zealand community being smaller and more homogeneous and 2) New Zealand language references being relatively recent. JackLumber. 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article American English, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] Pajamas

Thanks for the explanation in your edit summary. Is the OED quote a copyright violation? If so, how much can one quote? Not even a sentence or two? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess a footnote featuring the OED definition is a little out of place, but something like "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, [quote relevant information]" is fine. JackLumber. 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello. I noticed your recent edits to guitar related articles...and that you have identified yourself as a guitarist. Just wondering if you would be interested in joining the WikiProject Guitarists?. We could always use a few more members to help out in "the cause" :) . Feel free to drop by the project page and see what we're all about. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I'll see if I can find some time, I'm always so busy. Sigh. I am particularly fond of semiacoustic guitars, as you probably noticed... JackLumber. 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you can contribute full time...all your edits are appreciated. The project really needs "niche" editors who like to focus on one particular element. I got my first guitar when I was only 9 years old...a 1962 Strat. Not wanting to date myself but that guitar was brand new when I got it. I started playing professionally when I was only 13 years old and continued to do so until I switched into my Engineering career in the mid-1980s. Through both careers I have been a guitar addict and have kept every single guitar I've ever owned.(which I will do as long as my wife allows :) ). My 'addiction' collection totals 27 now including a few semi's that I cherish. I've had a Cherry ES-335 and a burst ES-175 for many years. I also have a Framus Akkerman model which is a beautiful guitar. I also "claim" to own a White Gretsch Falcon...I say claim because my oldest son declared himself as owner back when he was in University and I don't see it very often. My Christmas present to myself this year was a Ric 360-12. I would love to see a regular editor step in to care for the "semi" articles...but...it's all about 'time'. Again, thanks for your contributions and hopefully we'll see you around more often. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, a couple of your paragraphs hold true for yours truly too! Just substitute "sunburst ES-335" for "Cherry ES-335" and "Linguistics" for "Engineering." JackLumber. 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary

You beat me to my edit... oh well...that's what I get for using a <100mb/s datacard with Sprint for my connection...Thanks for changing retort on Wiktionary Radiooperator 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary

Thanks for the welcome and dang it all, you beat me to editing the Wiktionary page for retort...oh well at least it got done. Thanks for doing that.Radiooperator 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome (as in "Thanks, you're welcome," not "Welcome to Wikipedia" once more). JackLumber. 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Table (verb)" and similar entries in Canadian English words

JackLumber, you need to please go read WP:OWN right away. Your having created this article does not bestow special authority or weight upon your opinion regarding what does and doesn't belong here. "Table" is given its British Commonwealth meaning in Canada, which in the worldwide sense makes it not exclusively a Canadian usage, but in the context of proximity to the US, in which the term has a near-opposite meaning, the Canadian usage is noteworthy. This is not the only entry that would fit into such a category; entries abound in this list that are used in parts of the US, or are used differently in the US, or are used in the U.K. as well as parts of Canada. See for example "goof" and "flat", amongst others. --Scheinwerfermann 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about WP:OWN. That usage of table is duly noted in the main article, Canadian English, of which Canadian English words is but a spinoff. The North American context per se is irrelevant for the purpose of Canadian English words. JackLumber. 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed about WP:OWN; your statement was "I created this article, I know what belongs here and what doesn't". That is a direct violation of WP:OWN. Your subsequent comment ("Listen up!") reinforces the evidence that you are having trouble understanding that WP:OWN applies to you. Furthermore, edit wars are not permitted. Please refrain from reverting again before consensus is reached, one way or the other, on the article's talk page. Thanks.--Scheinwerfermann

The entries for goof and flat are fine, since they refer to uniquely Canadian meanings. You don't seem to understand the purpose of that article. JackLumber. 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

OK, fair enough. JackLumber. 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on February 13, 2007 to Canadian English words

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian English words, continued

Scheinwerfermann:

I don't claim to be the owner of that article. Sorry if I pissed you off. I only wanted to say, "Since I created this page as an article about apples, you are wrong in assuming it's an article about apples and oranges." Of course, we *can* remodel the whole thing and convert it into an article on "apples and oranges." For example, we can merge the Vocabulary section of Canadian English and Canadian English words into, say, Canadian English vocabulary, drop the alphabetical layout, and recategorize the words (Law, Politics (table, etc.), Household items, ..., Colloquialisms, Slang.) But table meaning "place on the agenda" is as Canadian as gasoline. The article Canadian English words currently is supposed to list "...words or expressions not found, or not widely used, in other variants of English." (Emphasis added). Other variants of English, not just American English. Or just British English, for that matter. JackLumber. 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. It does sound like I didn't understand your "I created the article" comment the way you intended it. In any event, it sounds like a more extensive rectification has come out of the debate, with table (verb) and other not-really-Canadianisms being culled, and that works for me. --Scheinwerfermann 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlamp

JackLumber, thanks for reverting the unwarranted deletions PJBFlynn perpetrated in Headlamp as a part of his improper attempt to move the article. Duk and I and others worked this morning to undo improper link changes he'd made to articles linking to headlamp, but overlooked the deletions in the article itself. --Scheinwerfermann 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was purposely trying to make up for my discourtesy... JackLumber. 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British English

Thanks for your edits, Jack. It looks a bit neater and sharper now. I need a good cold hard edit sometimes!ChrisRed 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Jack, I can't understand why you have labelled this... "Although the language as spoken in Britain has also gradually changed over the centuries, British English still remains closest to the 'original' dialect that the emigrees themselves spoke before they left Britain. ...as a false claim. I am a Brit, and I speak fairly standard working-class 'British English' - not the sanitised 'BBC' version that you are used to hearing in our exported media. If you could hear me, your 'American ear' would think that I sounded like something that had just stepped-off the ship from Bristol in the 1700s :-) I'll leave it up to you... ChrisRed 08:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just it---some British dialects are remarkably conservative; many Northern dialects don't even distinguish between put and putt. But "British English" often refers to the Received Standard, Oxbridge, BBC, etc., which is not that close to the original dialect (which dialect, btw? East Anglia, West Country, Scots-Irish...) In some respects, American English is more conservative than the Received Standard; for U.S. speakers, parse-pass, sure-shore, and paw-poor are very different; and I pronounce extraordinary "ex-tra-or-duh-nar-ee," not 'strawd'nry :-) Of course, British English has retained a lot of phonological and lexical features that we lost a long time ago (in the U.S., a creek is a stream and not an inlet; lumber is processed timber and not disused furniture; and been is pronounced "bin," sometimes "ben," hardly ever "bean"). Both "standard" British and American have evolved, although certain Northern or Scottish dialects haven't evolved that much. Not so sure about Bristol, though. IMO, the remark should be rephrased and moved to the "Dialects" section of the article. JackLumber. 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I think that the article is looking quite reasonable now. As for Mr Treherne, (hello sir), I can maybe understand his viewpoint to some extent. 'British English' is a strange sort of term, a bit like 'French French', or even in the future 'American American' god forbid, but I can't really think of another way to describe it. It is English as spoken in Britain. We can't call it 'original' English, or 'real' English, because the original accent is long lost, and there never was just one dominant accent anyway. I think that 'British English' is a term for a language that is still 'under construction'; a universal Lingua Franca of the British Isles for the mass-communication age. So perhaps at the moment it may actually be (IMHO)a slight 'tolerable misnomer' (as it should be called 'British Englishes' in the plural...yuck!) but I think that soon there will actually be a time where British accents converge into a fairly standard language that will be known to the rest of the world as 'British English'. I wonder if people in France feel the hairs on the back of their necks rise when when people from, say, Quebec say 'French French'?.80.43.95.163 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ChrisRed @home, who forgot to log in :-)

"There was a time long ago when the language was only called English, and a relatively short period after that when it seemed reasonable to add a qualifying adjective—such as American—to a variety that deviated from the source. But the source from which all of today's major dialects sprang is now itself a historical dialect ... While it is still possible, and in fact it is usual, to speak of English as a single and unified language, the differences among the dialects are a required object of study" (Orin Hargraves, Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions, p. 12). Perhaps, "French French" is still regarded as the standard. To put it another way, "British English" is that which glues the dialects of the UK (or the British Isles) together. If you park your estate car, which runs on petrol, at the kerb, which separates the pavement from the carriageway, that's British English. If your estate agent suggests you should buy a terraced house in High Street, that's British English. And I won't take no stock in it! (Not shares!) JackLumber. 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of British English... what's a pillock? I guess it's not a complimentary term... JackLumber.

(BrE, slang) a stupid person. (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) JackLumber.

All agreed, Jack. I have (with good cause) apologised to Mr Treherne for calling him a Pillock, which would translate more accurately as a "socially inept anal nerd". It's one of those words (like 'eejit') that I want to subvert into American English...like a virus :-) (ChrisRed)

213.249.142.18 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I emended a Wikipedia entry in order to clarify the content. Having had the text reverted once I amended my editions as I had realised it contained an opinion. The editions I have made since are perfectly valid and do not contravene the site rules as far as I can tell. The phrase 'British English' is in fact a misnomer not a 'broad term'. Therefore my changes do not constitute site "vandalism"

Are you a site administrator? If so then I shall apologise and leave your site to disseminate incorrect information as you wish. If not then please stop reverting the entry to the incorrect previous form.

Thank you

Mr A Treherne

[edit] Help with American English needed!

Jack - I hope you don't mind answering a simple (?) question about American English which has nothing directly to do with Wikipedia - though it's an issue that's discussed in American and British English differences. I am presented with a sentence (by an American writer) which reads "One-third of people aged 85 years or older needs assistance...". That needs sounds wrong to my BrE ears and sensibilities, so I am inclined to change it to need. In BrE it's a no-brainer [now, there's an American expression!]: in this sentence, needs is wrong, need is right. But I am aware that the American tendency is for verbs to agree formally rather than notionally with the subject, so I wonder if it's in fact correct AmE usage. Can you enlighten me? Thanks! Snalwibma 10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Collective nouns aside, I don't think that BrE and AmE disagree that much on agreement issues. The facts: plural (count) noun->plural verb; mass noun->singular verb; collective noun->both technically acceptable, although the singular sounds better to me. People is usu. a plural noun, not a mass noun or a collective noun, so the sentence in question calls for need. If it were one-third of the population, then needs would be correct. HTH, JackLumber. 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds just like BrE. Snalwibma 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I merged "Interlocking tower" into "Signal box"

Hello. I merged "Interlocking tower" into "Signal box" . Please visit Signal box, and, if you find something bad, please edit that. Thank you.Penpen0216 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pencil crayon

I have edited the reference to pencil crayon in the Canadian English article. Although, I have never used the term coloured pencil, it was used in The Globe and Mail this weekend. — Grstain | Talk 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! When it comes to everyday vocabulary, there's nothing more variable than Canadian usage... JackLumber. 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maize dablink

You were very quick to remove my dablink for Maize http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maize&diff=prev&oldid=118622931 -- I'm not in a position to challenge that, but perhaps you could recommend some other mechanism which (a) sits nicely at the top of the page and (b) explains to the baffled newcomers how come they got redirected from "Corn" to a word they have rarely heard and would never know how to spell. era 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! That's an overstatement. I guess the article is fine, the lead is clear enough. JackLumber. 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overstatement is my middle name. But seriously, I think anything which can exacerbate the never-ending discussion and rogue moves back to "corn" is a move in the right direction.

Tangentially, your comment says "ain't a dablink anyways" so I'm wondering what the (your? >:^) definition of "dablink" really is. The template itself doesn't offer any insight. -- era (Talk | History) 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Something like

For <yada yada>, see Ex.

and possibly

see also Wye and Zee.

Encyclopedic information should be confined to the article text. JackLumber. 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That much I gathered. Maybe I just need to monitor the situation wrt the Maize page some more before I make my mind up on this one. -- era (Talk | History) 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)