User talk:80.177.20.202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 80.177.20.202, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

RexNL 12:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Careful

No personal attacks, please ([1]). Arbustoo is neither ignorant nor a fool. Ignorance is a favourite word of the POV-pushers on this article, so take great care. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested that JzG take a better look at your edits. AvB ÷ talk 23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IDM

Hey, please don't argue in the edit summary box when your hasty deletes are reverted. Please join in the talk page discussion, especially as there is a p-mu post discussion area already!!! It even says please discuss first, otherwise it is vandalism. jones5 stop vandalising the fucking analord page man!!!

[edit] STOP VANDALISING THE ANALORD PAGE.

[edit] Modulo operation

I had reverted this edit as it had both a hypen and a dash. Should be one or the other. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is the editor's prerogative to Assume good faith and thus not to assume that an edit without a summary is vandalism. I appreciate this advice; however, it would be sensible to simply check whether an edit is vandalism or not rather than operate on a presumption that it is. The majority of edits on wikipedia—including all of mine—are in good faith. The presence of both a hyphen and dash was an accident. Apologies for this. Thanks. 80.177.20.202 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Using an edit summary is not only about vandalism. It allows us to understand what you changed, it is a time saver and at little cost for yourself.
And by the way, making account is a good idea too. Lots of us spend lots of time reviewing incoming contributions. The easier you make it for us (use a stable account, explain your edits), the better.  :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Hall dashes

Just so we'll know better in the future, what did you change the "-" to at Monty Hall problem#See also with this edit? We're feeling kind of stupid right now. Thanks for your help with this. --hydnjo talk 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, in response to your question, i changed the hyphens to em dashes (second dash from the left next to insert just below the edit box). This is in accordance with the correct use of dashes (as opposed to hyphens). The shorter en dash can be used when defining ranges (e.g. 10–20%), while the em dash is used parenthetically or to link phrases together. As an aside, I am keen to see more wikipedians understand this difference and incorporate more dashes into articles where they are appropriate. As it is now, I see countless errant hyphens or double hyphens when they should usually be em dashes! Even the automated name signing feature appears to be oblivious of the existence of them! Thanks, 80.177.20.202 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
We've never noticed that before. Is it important? If so, do we need to go back and fix mucho past edits? I can't imagine that if this is an egregious error that it hasn't been brought to our attention before now. Anyway, thanks for your instruction and is there anywhere that "-" would be appropriate? We're just trying to distinguish between the two characters. --hydnjo talk 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC) addendum: Ok, we see that you have already made the distinction. Sorry about that and please let me know if we screw-up again. Thanks --hydnjo talk 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at wikipedia's article for hyphen, it should hopefully clarify where it should be used. As a general rule, use as a textual ligature for compound words, e.g. man-eating shark or fun-loving and so on. Conversely, as I stated, dashes can be used to break sentences up (see dash article). As for the severity of the error, well, I think it's basically become such a common misuse that we can't hope to put everybody straight. I've even written to the BBC News website to complain about their incorrect hyphenation! You could call it petty, perhaps, but then again I believe language and communication thrives upon steadfast grammatical rules — after all, I think the general consensus among educated people is that the misuse of apostrophes is something to be avoided, so I thought: 'why not hyphens and dashes as well?' While my efforts to rid wikipedia of incorrect hyphenation may be in vain somewhat (and I usually tend to just correct as I see them, as opposed to actively seeking them out), I like to think that I'm helping to raise the standard of it somewhat; after all, if we're going to liken ourselves to the Encyclopædia Britannica, we want to minimise mistakes! What I don't intend is for my little rant to make you feel at all guilty, or like you ought to go back and fix your errors. After all, thousands of other users will carry on doing it, and I can't keep up with them all! Thanks, 80.177.20.202 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well now I/we are impressed! I'll always remember this discussion and will do my best to follow your gentle explanation as to when to use what. And should you ever decide to make your talk into an alpha name please let us know at your earliest convenience. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 01:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks in The Root of All Evil?

Hi. You changed two of the occurances of typographical quotation marks (“…”) in the RoaE article to straight, ASCII quotation marks ("…"). For the moment I reverted your edit, but since, judging from your talk page, you definitely have a knack for typography, I would be interested, why you made that edit. Also, please consider registering an account with Wikipedia. Every new member is greatly valued as part of the community, and it makes it far easier to keep track of one's edits. — Mütze 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your question. The main reason I chose to alter them to ASCII/typewriter as opposed to typographical quotation marks was in an effort to standardise the apppearance of said marks across wikipedia. You may have noticed that typewriter quotes are a far more common occurrence in articles, and while perhaps not being as aesthetically pleasing as their counterpart, are not inherently "wrong". As you may have read from my responses to other wikipedians on my talk page, I am more strict about the distinction between hyphens and em dashes — in this case each serves a specific purpose which, in my opinion, ought not to be confused.
I apologise for the digression, but in conclusion, I would say this:
  • I prefer to see a uniform, standard appearance for quotation marks. Given that typewriter marks are currently in the (vast) majority, I have considered it simpler to alter any remaining typographical marks, rather than the other way round.
  • According to Wikpedia's manual of style, neither form of quotation mark is correct over the other, unlike the difference between hyphens and em dashes.
  • Finding and replacing every typewriter quotation mark with a typographical one is a fairly enormous undertaking, especially when you consider that new edits will be made all the time which eschew them in favour of the more easily-to-input ASCII/typewriter mark. Granted, this is also true for hyphens, but I remain convinced that their incorrect usage must be stopped. Furthermore, it is fairly straightforward to replace incorrect hyphenation, but somewhat less so when dealing with quotation marks.


Many thanks, 80.177.20.202 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Girls Suck But You Don't

I saw that you got rid of most of the introductory paragraph of the Girls Suck But You Don't article. I reverted it for the time being, but since you didn't add in an edit summary, I'd like to know why you wanted that text gone. « SCHLAGWERKTalk to me! 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made 18 February 2007 to Popover

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. munboy 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the effort to combat vandalism, some good faith edits may be reverted. I apologize for the mistake that was made, but please let me explain my position: bad edits destroy what Wikipedia tries to be, a reliable source for unvandalized information. This may mean that some collateral damage, such as your edit by an anonymous user, may take place. Again, I am sorry. Thank you for updating Wikipedia though, and may God bless you for your continued efforts in the community! munboy 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)