User talk:Neilinabbey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:27, 3 January 2017

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Neilinabbey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for University of East London. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Darigan (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UEL

Hi, thanks for the THE citation ... but I still cannot find anywhere on the page cited that UEL was in the top 10. Could you perhaps copy/paste the relevant paragraph here? Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a link to an Excel spreadsheet, which has no URL of its own, which shows the rankings. Please do not remove this again as the citation is correct.

Hi, I'll remove it if the link isn't in the article. You can link to the spreadsheet, I guarantee it. Just copy/paste the area around where the sheet appears in the page here & I'll sort the link for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the article, but not part of the text - it is a very clear link just to the right of the words. Don't you think that removing the line is a bit unneccessary given that the article very clearly links to the spreadsheet?

Related files The following files will open in their associated programs.

RAE 2008: the results (PDF version)

( File, Size 148.3k )

THE Table of Excellence (excel version)

( File, Size 126.5k )

Hi, the policy with links is that they s/b specific (eg: with a book you would state the page number, just as in an academic exercise). Don't worry, I'll sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now pointed the link to the PDF version. However, I can still see nothing in there that supports the statement as there is no section ranking just "modern universities". Given my previous, am I rapidly losing my ability to see? <g> - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

Hello Neilinabbey. Please stop changing all the dashes in the United Kingdom article - it is a waste of time. There is nothing wrong with the dashes as previously existed - please see WP:MOSDASH. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PaleCloudedWhite - I have changed the em dashes to en dashes because this article uses British English, and the en dash is used in British English, not the em dash. Therefore it is perfectly correct to make the changes I have done, and no, I will not stop making them.

WP:MOSDASH states that either emdash or endash can be used, but that usage should be consistent. It makes no reference to usage differences between Br Eng and Am Eng, and seeing as I have seen emdashes used in British books about British topics, I am not convinced by your argument. However I shall make enquiries. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaleCloudedWhite. If it helps, I am a professional editor and proofreader, who works in both US and UK English, so I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. Moreover, having worked in publishing for 17 years, I have never seen em dashes used in British books about British topics, only in American books or books by US writers. You might want to check this website, though there are numerous other guides that will confirm this: https://www.gsbe.co.uk/grammar-the-dash.html I would also add that my opinion as an individual is at least as valid as yours and if I want to make these changes - which are not a waste of time - I will do so!

I have made an enquiry on this matter here. You may wish to contribute to any discussion that ensues. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the administrator's comment here [1]. E Eng 23:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At it again

If you are in fact a professional editor, Wikipedia could really use you – see WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors – though please review WP:MOS and (as you have time) its subsidiary pages. But if you keep up nonsense such as this [2], you'll be blocked and that will be that. Paging administrator Iridescent. E Eng 01:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm aware it's a little patronising but I'm going to give a formal warning notice here so you can't say you weren't aware.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Wikipedia's rules on style and formatting, and on when stylistic elements can be changed, are the product of over a decade of discussion regarding the best way to operate on a global project written and read by people from diverse cultural backgrounds, not a set of arbitrary rules which were made up to frustrate you. While ignore all rules is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's culture, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is a free-for-all; consensus is an even more fundamental part of that culture. If you continue to refuse to abide by the results of community discussions, you will be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia until you indicate that you're willing to abide by Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour. ‑ Iridescent 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's accepted in the house style that both unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes are acceptable, which means I have added NOTHING that is unacceptable. Moreover, it has been acknowledged that spaced en dashes are more common in the UK, and unspaced em dashes more widely used in the USA. Not only that, but the page in question uses British English and spaced en dashes are used on other pages on Wikipedia - and yet you effectively accuse me of behaviour that falls below your standards. That is absolute nonsense - if anything, the arrogant EEng should be warned since he claimed changing an em dash to an en dash entirely changed the meaning of the sentence, which frankly is both stupid and a downright deliberate lie. He's the one you should be warning, and you should review the complete lack of logic behind your thinking. Neilinabbey (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to take my observation out of context (that "spaced en dashes are more common in the UK, and unspaced em dashes more widely used in the USA") and use it to justify your behavior? Not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained elsewhere, you changed consistent use of a single kind of dash to a mixed jumble of kinds, which makes no sense under any circumstances.
Even had you consistently replaced one kind by another, that wouldn't be OK either, because (as, again, already explained) regardless of your personal beliefs, our manual of style (MOS:DASH) does not recognize particular national varieties of English as preferring particular kinds of dashes, and it forbids editors to waste their colleagues' time and attention bouncing about imposing their personal predilections on existing articles. You keep telling us that you know what a manual of style is, so prove it by following this one.
And finally, in the particular edit to which you refer [3] you did not, as you say, change one kind of dash to another, but rather changed a dash –

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state‍—‌the Republic of Ireland.

– to a comma –

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland.

– which does indeed change the meaning. Do you need me to explain how?

E Eng 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ::So, it's accepted in the house style that both unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes are acceptable, which means I have added NOTHING that is unacceptable. Moreover, it has been acknowledged that spaced en dashes are more common in the UK, and unspaced em dashes more widely used in the USA. Not only that, but the page in question uses British English and spaced en dashes are used on other pages on Wikipedia - and yet you effectively accuse me of behaviour that falls below your standards. That is absolute nonsense - if anything, the arrogant EEng should be warned since he claimed changing an em dash to an en dash entirely changed the meaning of the sentence, which frankly is both stupid and a downright deliberate lie. He's the one you should be warning, and you should review the complete lack of logic behind your thinking. [[User:Neilinabbey|Neilinabbey]] ([[User talk:Neilinabbey#top|talk]]) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
+:::::So you're going to take my observation out of context (that "spaced en dashes are more common in the UK, and unspaced em dashes more widely used in the USA") and use it to justify your behavior?  Not OK. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 :::*As already explained elsewhere, you changed consistent use of a single kind of dash to a mixed jumble of kinds, which makes no sense under any circumstances.
 :::*Even had you ''consistently'' replaced one kind by another, that wouldn't be OK either, because (as, again, already explained) regardless of your personal beliefs, our manual of style ([[MOS:DASH]]) does not recognize particular national varieties of English as preferring particular kinds of dashes, and it forbids editors to waste their colleagues' time and attention bouncing about imposing their personal predilections on existing articles. You keep telling us that you know what a manual of style is, so prove it by following this one.