|
|
| (includes 45 intermediate revisions) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| - | ==Subpage== | + | == Archived Talk == |
| - | Hey there Bill. Glad to have you aboard. I know Rogue Leader has already welcomed you, but I also want to drop a note to say hi. It looks like the information below is the beginnings of a page that you plan on creating. If that's the case, then I have a suggestion for you: You should build pages on a user subpage (for example, "User:Bill Martinson/Prank Calls"), and then when you're ready, use the move button at the top to transfer your page to its final home. The advantage to using a subpage is that this page can be used for user discussion, such as this message. Incidentally, I learned something about "comprise" today, and I have you to thank for it. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | * Thanks for the tip ... I was actually building the real page with its actual title, but naturally I didn't want to actally save it until it was finished. Your way is much better, as I can save periodically while I'm working, and (as you point out) I can benefit from others' feedback. Thanks! — [[User:Bill Martinson|Bill Martinson]] 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | Older stuff is [[User:Bill/Archived_Talk|here]]. |
| | | | |
| - | * So now I have [[User:Bill Martinson/Reference]] and [[User:Bill Martinson/Obviously Phony Aliases]] ... is there a way to automatically include a list of all my subpages? — [[User:Bill Martinson|Bill Martinson]] 18:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | == Long time, no see! == |
| - | ::I'm not aware of a method to ''automatically'' list subpages. If, however, you happened to forget what they are, you could look them up in [[Special:Allpages]] under the User namespace. [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Bill+Martinson&namespace=2 This link] would take you straight to them. But as far as listing them here in your user space, you'll have to do that manually. By the way, once you create a user page, your subpages will automatically have a backlink to your main page. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | ==Category listings==
| + | Hey there, stranger! Happy Hallow-day! Good to see you! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
| - | New Question: I moved my page from User:Bill Martinson/Obviously Phony Aliases to Obviously Phony Aliases, but the category pages (for Running Gags and Lists) still point to the original page (which is now a redirect). This ''works'', of course, but it looks thoroughly awful in the category lists. I tried to fix this by looking for the right templates to edit, but the categories mechanism doesn't seem to use templates (as best I can tell). So it would seem that either the move function is not really the best way to do this, or there is something about it I don't understand. — [[User:Bill Martinson|Bill Martinson]] 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | :Good to see you too, my friend. Yes, I have been too long absent. Life has been very busy for me lately. {{User:Bill/sig}} 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
| - | | + | |
| - | : Found the workaround: delete the category tags from the article, save, then put them back in. I guess in the future I'll have to keep such tags as plain text until I move the article to its final destination. — [[User:Bill Martinson|Bill Martinson]] 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::Hmm. I know there's a simpler way, but when I tried to test it, I couldn't recreate the situation (even though this has happened to me before). Oh, well. As long as it works now. Rock, rock on! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Every day ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Ooh, it really bugs me when people confuse ''everyday'' for ''every day''. And then I sometimes see ''every-day'' in place of ''everyday'', in news articles! Does no one speak English anymore?! Anyway, high fives. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | : Nice to find a kindred spirit! — [[User:Bill Martinson|Bill Martinson]] 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::Oh, I don't think you'll find grammar 'n' usage enthusiasts lacking around here. Take a look at [[HRWiki:Manual of Style]] and its accompanying talk page! —[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 22:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Expanding your "Search & Destroy" list ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I have yet to introduce myself, but I would like to go ahead and say "hi" to you at this point. Anyway, the point of my discussion here was to inquire whether it would be OK with you to add certain grammatical "issues" to your ''Search & Destroy'' list. Some examples of such "issues" would be '''a lot vs. *alot''' and '''whether (conjunction) vs. weather (noun)'''. I have more but at this point I think it would be prudent to await a response before continuing further. Thanks! {{User:The Paper/sig}} 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | : I've created a new section on my user page for this, and I'll add your requests there. — [[User:Bill Martinson|Bill Martinson]] 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == The ''only'' thing. ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Sweet grammar guide you got there! I was wondering... have you seen the movie ''Oscar'' with Silvester Stallone? :) --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | : Sorry, I haven't. Thanks for the compliment. Maybe someday the grammar guide can graduate into a sister page for the frequently misspelled words page. {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::Oh! you should see it! It's a ''very'' funny movie! And your dangling modifiers reminded me of it, but I will say no more. Just rent it! ;) A grammar guide page! Sounds cool. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ==Welcome aboard!==
| + | |
| - | ...And, since this doesn't really connect with any of the above discussions, I'll start a new section. I just wanted to commend you for the tremendous number of really grade-A contributions you've made in the space of, what, 24 hours? It's always helpful to get someone who knows a misplaced modifier from a comma splice, and your zeal is matched by accuracy. Long may you edit! —[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :Wow, thanks for the kind words. In my experience, editors are usually considered a necessary evil at best, so it's nice to be appreciated and not just considered a Word Nazi. It's too bad there isn't some kind of regular-expression search function, to make it easier to find things like comma splices and other structural errors. (Being somewhat lazy, I wanted to start out with easy stuff I could just search for!) Oh well ... I guess I'll just have to read the whole darned wiki. ;-) {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == <font color="red">Red</font> ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Do we realy need the new templates you made? In my whole experience in this wiki, I can count the number of times I used red text on one finger (Yes, finger). Anyway, if this stays, you could make it on one template. You should also read [[Help:Template]] :) {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :Indeed. I've marked them for deletion, as they don't serve a purpose. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::Well, initially I ''thought'' they were going to serve a purpose: I anticipated I might be using a lot of red and green as the [[User:Bill_Martinson/Grammar Guide|Grammar Guide]] grew. But the templates didn't work the way I expected them to, and at the time I didn't realize templates could take parameters. All of which is moot, of course, in lieu of the more important server load issue (which I didn't even think about at the time). If it does turn out I start getting sick of writing span tags all the time for color, I may try again in the future using single (rather than paired) templates with parameters (and applying the '''subst:''' trick to save on server load). But by all means, let's delete the ones I created today, and I'm sorry for the trouble. {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :::Hey, it's no trouble. Experimentation is part of the fun. (It ''is'' a bummer when it doesn't work out like you'd hoped, though.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Not gonna rest till you like this word ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Wow, someone on the wiki who's older than I am.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I am a copyeditor for a magazine. (''Southwestern Musician''. Our circulation is about 14,000, and the length varies, but it's about 72 pages each month.) Consequently, my two favorite resources are ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' and ''A Dictonary of Modern American Usage''. I am a staunch supporter of the final serial comma in a list of three or more items. But I must take issue with your maligning the word ''till''. It is a very good word. Here is the entry for ''till'' in the latter reference, in its entirety:
| + | |
| - | <blockquote>
| + | |
| - | '''till; until.''' ''Till'' is, like ''until'', a bona fide preposition and conjunction. Though less formal than ''until'', ''till'' is neither colloquial nor substandard. It's especially common in BrE—e.g.:
| + | |
| - | *"After the First World War, Hatay, named by Attaturk after the Hittites, fell into the hands of the French, who did not return it ''till'' 1939." Daniel Farson, "Rich Rewards in the Land of the Hittites," ''Independent'', 1 Apr. 1995, at 37.
| + | |
| - | *It was not ''till'' 1994 that the New Yorker unmasked Reage as journalist Dominique Aury—Paulhan's long-standing lover...." Jonathan Romney, "Story of O and S&M," ''Guardian, 21 Mar. 1997, at T9.
| + | |
| - | *"He works from dawn ''till'' dusk, six days a week...." Adrian Brewer, "The House of God That Justo Built," ''Daily Telegraph'', 31 Mar. 1997, at 17.
| + | |
| - | <br/>And it still occurs in AmE—e.g.: "In medium skillet, sauté the garlic ''till'' golden. Add onion, wait ''till'' brown." Jan Norris, "Latin, Asian Fests Add Spice to Weekend," ''Palm Beach Post'', 23 Mar. 1995, at 1FN. But the myth of the word's low standing persists; some writers and editors mistakenly think that ''till'' deserves a bracketed ''sic''. See, e.g., Alan Abrahamson, "'Out to Kill,' Says Eccentric S.D. Fugitive," ''L.A. Times'', 30 July 1990, at B1 (adding a ''sic'' when quoting someone who used ''till'').<br/>
| + | |
| - | If a form deserves a ''sic'', it's the incorrect ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>til''. Worse yet is ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>till'', which is abominable—e.g.: "A month or two remain ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>till'' [read ''till''] you grab your dancing shoes, plus a crew of pals or that special date." Francine Parnes, "Primping for the Prom," ''Denver Post'', 21 Mar. 1997, at E1.
| + | |
| - | </blockquote>
| + | |
| - | Additionally, the ''American Heritage Dictonary'' has this to say about the two words' usage: "''Till'' is actually the older word, with ''until'' having been formed by the addition to it of the prefix ''un–'', meaning 'up to'" [http://www.bartleby.com/61/43/T0214300.html ref].
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Warmest regards,
| + | |
| - | <br/>[[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | : Wow. ''Wow.'' My gut response was to deploy the old "just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it's the best choice" argument, but I'm glad I didn't. I thought about what you were saying, did a little more research to confirm it, and found out that ''I have been flat wrong''. Like, f'rever, man. Wow. It's pretty humbling (and embarrassing). But thank you for taking the time to make your point so clearly, saving me the further embarrassment of fighting a losing battle! | + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | : And the plot thickens. Not only did I learn that ''till'' is right and '' 'til'' is wrong, but I found a very interesting (if overly technical) [http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No8/YT1.html paper] asserting that ''till'' and ''until'' are not true synonyms, but rather have subtle differences. In a nutshell, one can assert that ''till'' tends to focus on the process (the waiting), whereas ''until'' tends to emphasize the result (that which ends the waiting). After going through the author's real-world examples, I am convinced. This is why we tend to say, "Peel those potatoes until you have a full bushel, Private!" (emphasis on the result), but "I'll have you peeling potatoes till Hell freezes over, Private!" (emphasis on the process). All of which provides even more evidence that one word is not a clipped form of the other.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | : Thanks for educating me! I will probably never again be able to type "until" without stopping to think whether I should instead use "till".
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | : {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::Oh, good. I guess I can rest now (if only for a minute). Are you a current or former military man, hm*h0mey587, or was that just the first thing that popped in your head? I suppose the potatoes examples could have been the author's as opposed to yours, now that I think about it. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :::wow, another showing like that and you'll get you own grammar award dot com. Now if I could just get SB's song out of my head, "oh, if it's possesive it's just "its"..." {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :::No, I'm not a military man (the KP example was just the first thing that popped into my head). However, I am highly military-compatible (or perhaps I should say military-friendly). Most everything I've done in my entire life pales in comparison to the daily sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen, and by their families. {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::::Same here. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
| + | |
| - | :::::Wow—I can only repeat that you seem to be bringing out the best in us, Bill. What I found most fascinating about all that was that ''till'' was the original and ''until'' the expansion, whereas I had assumed it was original and then contraction. It makes me want to dig further into the etymology—but not want to enough to overcome my need for sleep. —[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Barnstars ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Hi Bill,
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Can you create a ''list of recipients'' entry for your new [[HRWiki:Barnstars|Barnstar]]. You can look on [[HRWiki:Barnstars|this]] page for examples of how some people have done it.
| + | |
| - | {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | : Done. {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Delorted ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Hey Bill. Do you want that subpage deleted? 'Cause if you do, just put <nowiki>{{delete|reason}}</nowiki> on it, and I'll take care of it. (By the way, deleted pages can be restored if you ever change your mind.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | : Yes ... thanks. {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == (In)consequential things ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Bill, if we can't argue about inconsequential things, then what fun is having a wiki? :) (Regarding Marzipan, I ''do'' see your points; obviously, it is I who have not explained myself very well. But I don't want to get into all that here.) The item in question has enough support and has been open long enough to be closed without further ado. If, however, you want to propose a rewording on the talk page, you should do so. I personally happen to agree with the wording as it is now, but ''I'm not married to it''. In addition, I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate what an awesome contributor you are, and to keep encouraging you in your continued endeavors here. Never be shy about bringing up minute distinctions. We need people who will split hairs, and the way you do is top-notch. Keep on tranglin'! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ==Featured Article==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Regarding your comment on the Main page talk about editing the featured article; if you want an easier way to find the links and edit the featured articles, [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection]] is the way to go. Not only are all the links listed there, but you can even have a say in what's featured. Thanks for the help with the Decemberween article! {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 14:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Dangeresque disambig ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Re: [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Dangeresque&diff=prev&oldid=220962] ...The reason I added that is that I thought a casual visitor might be confused—the Strong Bad Email that introduces Dangeresque is not actually ''called'' "dangeresque", but later there ''is'' an email that's called that. The way the disambig link is worded, it sounds like there is only one Dangeresque-related email. Also, we do have [[Twin Characters|at least one example]] where we differentiate between two general concepts (as opposed to literal page titles). I do see your point as well; I actually hesitated before I made my edit, and I thought I'd leave a note here explaining my line of thought at the time. Cheers! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | : Okay, I buy that. I guess we'll have to keep an eye on the slippery slope and develop a feel for how far is too far, but your logic is sound. {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :: Ooh, a gray area! In my younger days, I didn't fully appreciate the fact that sometimes things aren't quite black or white, but now (especially after the literally hundreds and hundreds of discussions on what makes a good fun fact) I've come to enjoy the subtleties of the gray area. Within that area I like finding the balance of what is "just right"—somewhere in between that which is too much and too little. (Goldilocks really knew what she was doing when she nicked all of Baby Bear's stuff.) Discovering the balance is at least as much art as science. (And I still can't believe a site about [[Glossary#D|dumb animal characters]] is making me into a better critical thinker.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Move template ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | We (or rather, I) have questions on [[Template_talk:moveinprogress|this page]] about the move template you made. When you get a minute, would you comment there. Thanks. Merry Christmas and Cheery Decemberween! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :When you move pages, it needs to be done in such a way as to preserve page histories. I am going to fix it. It will all be like you wanted it when I'm done, but it will take just a second, but don't worry: Everything will be fine, nothing will [[50_emails#Transcript|be ruined]]. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :: Okay ... so which part should I have done differently? I can't actually delete the old disambiguation page, so I can't ''move'' Mr. Shmallow (character) to Mr. Shmallow, but instead have to transplant the text. What's the method that preserves page histories? {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 18:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :::You have to have the other page deleted, and then you can move another page into its place. Besides preserving the page history, it also eliminates the need for a notice on the page while you're working. Another helpful hint: There are links you can click on the [[HRWiki_talk:Tour|Tour talk page]] that will purge the cache and make the tour pages reload with the most updated version. Hope the turkey's good! Merry Christmas! — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :::: So basically I need to wait for a sysop to delete the disambiguation page (which leaves a hole in the site), then come in and do the moves? I don't really like leaving the wiki in a broken state between the time the sysop does the delete and I notice it's been done. Is there another option? {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 19:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
