User talk:Ufwuct

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Quote

Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I've taken something you said and put it on my User page, because I think, out of context, it's pretty funny, but at the same time, truthful. ALTON .ıl 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. Apparently it worked and someone eventually did find a source up to my (our) satisfaction. Cheers. Ufwuct (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I'm a regular contributor on Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States. I wanted to stop by both to thank you for the useful edits you made to the page -- they were universally approved by a large lot of the regular contributors there -- but also to mention that, because of the extremely contrarian culture of that particular page, we hope that any future edits to content you might make are first floated and debated on the talk page beforehand.

Please understand that these are not measures of hollow ceremony; the page has been repeatedly targeted for deletion and suffered a lot of edit wars, and over time a consensus has emerged that such habits are the best means of avoiding any recurrences of counter-productivity.

Once again: thanks for the useful edits, and we hope to see you again some other time. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My first impression is that the page is probably filled with an overwhelming amount of unsourced material, probably a lot from professors who couldn't get published for real. What I'm sure of is that it lacks balance; the counterarguments are too few and most are not even sourced. However, I don't have the time to substantially correct and look up rebuttals to the claims right now, so almost all my edits were for style and the rest were for violations of policy (though content related).
I saw that you are a frequent contributor to the article; I wish you the best of luck with this topic. Ufwuct (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celery

Hi,

I was confused by your edit to celery, but then I realized I was confused in general about celery terminology. For what it's worth, here it says that the individual long things you eat are ribs and the stalk is the collection of ribs. Though I wouldn't mind more confirmation. In case it comes up again. This is a bit more official, CFIA is an official government body in Canada. WLU (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 3 • 22 March 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Split infinitive

Can't help replying to your edit summary at High German consonant shift. Your edit is fine - probably that is the more common syntax - though the way it was was fine too. But what has that got to do with a split infinitive? Neither your version nor the older one had a split infinitive. Besides, people who don't use split infinitives are not following a made-up rule. They are speaking a variety of English which is slightly more conservative, that's all. See split infinitive for the story of this construction - it's an interesting tale, and not the way most people imagine it. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's not an infinitive, but I was referring to the "be contrasted" verb phrase. It reminded me of efforts to not split the infinitive, even when the result looks forced and artificial. When I said "made up", I was limited by the length of the edit summary box and was referring to the false analogy with Latin. In centuries past, this was the main argument to try to give a historical justification for the rule (of not splitting). Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Please see my edit to George Bush Intercontinental Airport

looking at other airport pages, most that i have seen have the distance as 'as the crow flies' without a source. i believe that is the best way to go, with a more accurate distance than 23 miles. i don't know why your edit was changed; i agree that it needs to be more accurate. driving miles can be interperated in different ways, so physical location from downtown, again 'as the crow flies', is in my opinion the most accurate. for right now, we can either leave it as driving miles or change it to what i suggested. as a source, would google map be good enough? cheers Urban909 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Edit: found source that confirmed the 20 mile distanceUrban909 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the 20 mile source better, but I still think that it should be clarified that this is a driving distance and not actual miles. The ATL article mentions 7 miles from downtown Atlanta. Chicago's straight line distance is about the same as the driving distance (though they overestimate by 0.7 miles for some reason). It's just that some people elsewhere saw that 23 mile figure and questioned it being that far away. Plus, now that you have found a better source, I think I can put a Google source beside it. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
sounds good to me. driving miles probably is better, as related to the sources found. Urban909 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! Happy editing. Ufwuct (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter, Issue 4

Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 4 • 30 April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beloit, Wisconsin- citations

I did find 2 citations for the Beloit, Wisconsin article. One citation is from the Wisconsin Historical Society about John Francis Appleby and his invention and the other was an ad from the Beloit News that came from the Beloit Historical Society. As for the speedometer citation, I would agree that one is dubious. They can always be removed. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help on the article. The sources look good. Perhaps we could leave the speedometer part in there for maybe a week to see if the original author of this statement can clarify and source this. Then we could remove. What do you think? Ufwuct (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment. On the speedometer part I agree we should just wait. RFD (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Kill a Mockingbird

Hello. I brought this article to FA status, and I agree with Maralia that the information you're including does not belong in this article. It has a wonderful place in the Mockingbird article, but as it has nothing to do with the book, its production, themes, adaptations, or reception, it does not belong in this one. I'm going to revert it. If you have any questions, please respond here on on the TKaM talk page. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)