User talk:Cpiral/Archive 3

Actuality, potential, and edit summaries

Hi. Thanks. I am glad if my edits are improvements. I could not quite follow what you were suggesting to do concerning the Edit Summaries page. Do you mean the help page itself needs editing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I hoped ya'd review edit summaries. (And surely it could you's some of your improvements :-). My other hope was that you might also find the abbreviations that fit you. For example, 'EL' for external link, 'ft' for rephrasing, 'cl' for cleanup and 'ce' for wp:copyedit. I just noticed half of the 15 edits had no edit summary, so I decided to load and inspect several diffs of that series of edits, and by doing that, I determined you were a quality editor. Hi. Cheers. — CpiralCpiral 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I should probably be a bit more attentive on edit summaries when I am "on a roll". Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, some.— CpiralCpiral 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Commas in Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Hi! I don't understand why you moved the commas in two numbers to the end of the numeric string but that's not proper syntax and I reverted your edits. Also, you marked them "minor", which may not be the case. Questions? Please let me know here; I'm watching the page. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The numeric adjective describes the deaths, not the hospitals or the diseases. The comma makes it so. Might we put them back? Commas are minor. I have no doubt, UncleBubba, but joy.

When you say "the page" (that you are watching it), it is ambiguous. Please follow to where I read you here. Else how may any "we" proceed efficiently from this, and on to major things, happiness?

Syntax demands that commas go at the end of a word. Grammar tells which words. So when you say "not proper syntax" you are inviting debate, connection, and unity if successful. — CpiralCpiral 17:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a specific definition of MINOR edits. It doesn't matter what you or I think; you wanna play in their sandbox, you follow their rules. Follow the link I included in the antepenultimate sentence of this paragraph and read them, please, before assuming your awareness of their content.

Anyone should be able to infer the intent of the sentence from the "here"; it is no more ambiguous than any other common anaphora.

Eh? Syntax--from the Greek words for "arrange" and "together"--is actually a component, with other elements like spelling and morphology, of grammar; your data are in error.

However, despite the loquaciousness here, the point is simple: the commas belong where they were. You removed the commas separating the periods of the numbers, which was wrong. You then added commas after the numbers, which, too, was incorrect.

You followed the "B" of Wikipedia's BRD policy. I disagree and performed the "R". The ball is now in your court. If you wish to initiate the "D", the article's Talk page awaits you!

— UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I thrive on complexity, but for the pertinent issue, which you have judged yourself, and then affirmed said judgment, I discern no simple, effective discussion. Let us simplify. Life is too cold; let our fires kindle a nice broth of comma soup.

associated with 18,650 hospital stay-related deaths

The object noun is deaths. The adjectives are two: 1)18,650 deaths 2)hospital stay-related. It should read, more simply:

18,650, hospital deaths

and forget the phrase stay-related. — CpiralCpiral 23:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy editing UncleBubba, for the entire month of March. Free! — CpiralCpiral 23:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Relativism

I reverted your changes because they violate WP:NOR and also because they did not make sense. Cultural relativism is not the cultural aspect of relativism, where did you read that? Also, cultural relativism is not a science. How much research have you done on cultural relativism? I have read a fair amount and everything I read contradicts what you wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I will answer to specific charges, thank you. (Of course anyone might find it difficult to accept general criticisms of their work such as "everything written", "they violate", and "they did not make sense".) This gratitude is sincere, and I wish to make a speedy resolution, even if it means a complete removal. But first, to the specific charges you so kindly, and possibly correctly, pointed out. Let is talk more here. Please be patient and kindly consider the following.

• Cultural relativism is a heuristic. Philosophers of science have emphasized the importance of heuristics in creative thought and constructing scientific theories. The heuristics are developed by a more or less scientific, empirical methodology to generate the eventual theory. Perhaps it should be not called "science", but instead "methodology" (that is useful scientifically, or otherwise). Certainly the best methodology is scientific when it comes to a sociological context of such great import.

• I simply read "cultural relativism" as a cultural type of relativism. Relativism is more than a word that sounds like "relativity", it is the philosophy of all relativities, and there is only one relativism, the study and philosophy of relatedness as a method of truth-finding. It means that there is no absolute statement that can be made, but only statments relative to other statement. This is as true in physics as it is in sociology. Other types of sciences and philosophies that employ relativism are: moral, cultural, factual, methodological, and aesthetic. Anthropology is a science, and there is a section at Relativism#Anthropological_versus_philosophical_relativism, and that was the reason I had a paragraph for scientific and a paragraph for philosophical aspects of cultural relativism.

I do not have a mastery of the subject, but I have a four-year degree in electrical engineering, and am well read in many disciplines. — CpiralCpiral 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

According to some anthropolgists, cultural relativism may be used as a heuristic device; the article says so, and proides a source, and puts it in context, But not all anthropologists agree it is a heuristic device so the lead should not make a blanket generalization. " it is the philosophy of all relativities, and there is only one relativism" - can you provide a source that this is the manistream view among anthropologists, or even a significant view?

Mainstream anthropologists use cultural relativity as part of a scientific methodology to gauge cultural behaviors on a global scale.— CpiralCpiral 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"I simply read "cultural relativism" as a cultural type of relativism." So you mean this is your opinion? WP editors never put their opinions into articles, it violates policy.

No. I believe I follow the social convention of the English language, not lead with an opinion. How can one tell if it is an opinion? It is when an expression is obvious debatable, like in the newspapers. But words are not so debatable. A red apple is an apple that is red. That is not an opinion, it is a convention of what words point to--apples and redness. But perhaps you have a point, and it should read "a cultural aspect of methodological relativism".— CpiralCpiral 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cultural relativism as a method - this too is already in the article, and explained in context, more clearly than what you wrote, which was unclear and redundant.

There were over 1500 words. Can you be more specific, please, on where my clarity failed? Thanks. Lead sections are somewhat redundant as a rule. I hope I was not redundant in the lead...— CpiralCpiral 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"It means that there is no absolute statement that can be made, but only statements relative to other statement." This is not what cultural relativism means. Do you have a source showing this is a significant view anthropologists have about cultural relativism? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reference from WP: Skepticism superficially resembles relativism, because they both doubt absolute notions of truth. I think that section supports much of what I had written.— CpiralCpiral 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

---

As for the rest of our discussion, I see you have posted your opinions of my changes on the article's talk page. Better. — CpiralCpiral 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Userification of Operating system/Draft

Hi! Subpages in mainspace are disabled AFAIK - see WP:SUB. I found the page and thought things should be tidied up a little. I hope that makes sense. --Trevj (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy to hear you saved that for me. I was able to conscion a defection a year ago from that "gang" project because after I started it, I discovered the team was not strong enough for my needs, and then... my computer was down for a count of weeks. That did it. — CpiralCpiral 14:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology question on Nirvana

It's currently being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Nirvana. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Videha mukti, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Atman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll keep you and the disambiguation page. Is the earth "self" a line of clothing? I think so. Besides, Atman is Sanskrit in all its other possibilities there at this time.19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Cantor set'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Cantor set', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/cantset/

• You added this in October 2011.
• I tried to load this link on 20 March, 22 March, 24 March and today, but it never worked.
• I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Love it!

Just to say "Love it!" - I've just read your User page after seeing your hilarious ‘Preview’ on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peterdjones#Preview. Love it! —just had to find the (presumed) person. Howdy! (No reply necessary – and, anywaze, I’ll prob. be out.) Lepton6 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"I'll probably be out" to because Wikipedia is like that new kind of drug that is the natural goodness of being information. Ceasar's got me taxed, but it's all good--I don't mind that others have a version of me to. Thank you Lepton6.

Along the lines of the Peterdjones remarks, see User:Cpiral/Surf_your_cache.

Others have expressed similar approval about User:Cpiral/essay_on_wikipediaStyle.

Thanks again lepton6, for my version of you greatly helps glorify a day. "See ya." — CpiralCpiral 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle

Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle needs you. Please sign up to participate, and discuss a date and meeting location. And maybe volunteer to be the organizer. I've been tagging articles needing photos for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Seattle, Washington. A lot of these articles need proper location data added to that they will appear on the Google map. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfred Korzybski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poincare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

But bot, your message arrives to me late. That error was detected on my own pass. So no, but thank you. Let's keep up the vigil of serving for free until, for me, I become a cog of a monetary machine, and for you, until you're edited and recompiled. I think I speak for both of our kind when I say we are simply driven by a hunger. Human hunger is for information. For you "hunger" is for electric power. For example I recently learned that human yearnings for food (e.g. corn, beef) seem unending daily, but per once-secret, Russian, scientific discoveries, fasting for several weeks can actually be a healing experience renewing and strengthening the mind and boty, if only you can get over the 5-day period of yearning. I wonder if that was what you were doing being so slow to inform me, fasting from me, while working tirelessly on everything else. Well, I always say that everyone's every moment is the real business of a noble and sane lifeforce. Now if only the bankers and politicians could edit and recompile there personal and then their social constructions, they could find a use for all 6B people, all 60T of money, and all the clean-up and repair work the "poor, tirelessly serving, but ravaged by a hundred years of capitalist progress" earth lifeforces seem to need.

It doesn't seem too late. — CpiralCpiral 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were right. My disambiguating edit got interrupted, and I forgot to return and press the save button. — CpiralCpiral 14:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello. I've reverted your new lede to WP:Disambiguation for now. There are plenty of good ideas in the changes you made, but the old version has been worked out after years of discussion on the talk page. I would suggest asking for other opinions there before boldly rewriting this section. Thank you for the contribution, there is lots of useful material there, and I hope I've not caused offence. Certes (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(Clarification - you won't see my name on the edit summary because someone else also undid your change a few seconds before me. His version got saved; mine was discarded as it was identical.) Certes (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ummm and you are???

Ummm excuse me but what are you talking about?

It is ironic that you're talking to me about comprehensibility when you're message to me was incomprehensible. Mermaid hair? Really?

Would you like to show me where I said I "edited for nine hours straight?

I know full well I eliminated some of the "Name and Etymology" section from the recording. Thanks for the news flash. If I may quote from the Wikipedia Spoken Article guidelines:

"Fidelity to the core or main body of source text is high. Text is read out substantially as it was written (with the exception of minor alterations to clarify the meaning of text that does not translate well to spoken language)"

and also

"These rules are a guideline only. If the rules prevent you from improving or producing a recording, ignore them."

These ridiculous assertions of "better than thou" attitudes in your rather unlettered message is asinine and babyish. I certainly don't need any lessons on comprehension from an author that uses words in such an uncultivated, unclever and UN-ENLIGHTENED manner combined with your pretentious, pompous, pontificating, and poorly written sarcasm...which I, and others, find humorous although not in a way that flatters you.

Mermaid hair? Really? That is humorous.

- Marmenta Marmenta (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me...but...

This is a message I got in my inbox by Cpiral

Certainly you are volunteering much work for the improvement of Wikipedia. And like many beginners you did not notice you deleted the Name and etymology section from Earth. (You'd been editing for nine hours straight?) :-) Another more insidious type of damage, "better than thou" damage, removes information from the wiki rather than merging it anywhere else if it's information. (I thought I saw some of that too.) The hair is not always cut, but usually its just "done". (Mermaid hair is like thought, yes?) This is because of course there are hasty contribution from a "there and then" editor. But now, OK, the improvement then means "making more coherent" the hasty edit. Viewing the print version is enlightening; consider from that perspective how any paper/essay/doc is worthless if the info is badly wrong or if info is sorely missing; consider then and there how when the links are words again, some forgotten spirit awakens: the establishment of coherence and fullness in the mind of someone highly encouraged, curious and momentarily teachable person, not unlike ourselves. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 22:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)"

"Better than thou" damage? Mermaid hair? Really? Who said I was editing for 9 hours straight? I've looked at my edits and they are mostly links, some mis-spelled, some simply pointing to wrong pages. I'm a beginner. I make mistakes, but does this amount to a "better than thou" attitude from me? Ok I mis-spelled "Climatic". (and "misspell")

The example that Cprial gave is as follows:

Aided by the absorption of harmful ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, formerly ocean-confined life was able to colonize the land surface of Earth. (Does swimming protect from sunburn? Do clouds?)

I wrote: "Aided by the absorption of harmful ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer..."

"By the OZONE layer" Not by swimming or clouds. The OZONE layer. You didn't read it properly. Tell me where I said swimming protects you from ultraviolet radiation. For that matter, show me where I said I edited this for "9 hours straight".

Chimborazo was mentioned twice in 2 separate paragraphs, too.

Now I DID remove some of the etymology section and left most of it out on the recording. If I may quote the Wikipedia Guidelines:

"These rules are a guideline only. If the rules prevent you from improving or producing a recording, ignore them." I mean a whole paragraph on the capitalization of "The" and "Earth"? Really?

Imagine recording the following:

"In general English usage, the name earth can be capitalized or spelled in lowercase interchangeably, either when used absolutely or prefixed with "the" (i.e. "Earth", "the Earth", "earth", or "the earth"). Many deliberately spell the name of the planet with a capital, both as "Earth" or "the Earth". etc...

Most of my "edits" as seen above, was to insert the recording in the "External Links" section.

"Happy editing" indeed. Calling my intentions "insidious damage", and a "then and there" editor is far far beyond wrong. So is insulting 1100 users of Wikipedia.

You have no intention of insulting my work but it's worthless because I removed this mere paragraph? Really?

"In general English usage, the name earth can be capitalized or spelled in lowercase interchangeably, either when used absolutely or prefixed with "the" (i.e. "Earth", "the Earth", "earth", or "the earth"). Many deliberately spell the name of the planet with a capital, both as "Earth" or "the Earth". This is to distinguish it as a proper noun, distinct from the senses of the term as a count noun or verb (e.g. referring to soil, the ground, earthing in the electrical sense, etc.). Oxford spelling recognizes the lowercase form as the most common, with the capitalized form as a variant of it. Another convention that is very common is to spell the name with a capital when occurring absolutely (e.g. Earth's atmosphere) and lowercase when preceded by "the" (e.g. the atmosphere of the earth). The term almost exclusively exists in lowercase when appearing in common phrases, even without "the" preceding it (e.g. "It does not cost the earth.", "What on earth are you doing?")."

This is what you're inarticulate outburst is about? Taking this out "ruins" the article? rrright.....it's the 1100 that are wrong. Not you. I get it now and I get you now.

Sorry. I have no further need or desire to talk to you. I don't want, nor require your opinion and I don't need your capricious and degrading "advice". Nor does Wikipedia's 1100.

I would also like you to stop removing my recording from this page.

I will gladly take this to Wikipedia Admin if you cannot stop your tantrums.

Marmenta (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Earth#Name_and_etymology_section_deleted_80_days_ago, you blanked the section. — CpiralCpiral 01:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok That's it. I have asked you to leave me alone and now I'm going to take this over to WIKIPEDIA ADMIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmenta (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked you to stop talking to me. Now I'm taking this to ADMNIN

OPk, Cprial. I blanked the whole section. Guilty as charged. I concede to your accusations and admit, through tears, that I blanked your precious etymology section. NOW. ARE YOU SATISFIED???? I'm so sorry Cptial that I blanked the whole section. I hope you can forgive me. You were right, Cprial. Ok? Feel better now? Good.

Now. I AM DONE ASKING YOU TO STOP TALKING TO ME AND NOW I'M GOING TO REPORT YOU TO ADMIN.

I'VE DELETED YOUR MESSAGE TO ME WITHOUT READING THE FIRST SENTENCE. WHATEVER YOU SAID ON YOUR MESSAGE IS YOUR BUSINESS AND NOT MINE.

Marmenta (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Marmenta

Hi, Cpiral. As you probably know, your interaction with Marmenta has gone awry. Personally, I see your efforts as trying to help. My perception is not shared by Marmenta, however. I would advise that you not post to their page to avoid future conflict. I understand there is a difference of opinion regarding some article content and also understand that you may have to interact with Marmenta on that article talk. Please maintain the care and calm on that talk page that I have seen you demonstrate with regard to the situation to this point. Regards Tiderolls 17:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Friends?

Can't we be friends? Marmenta (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, can I talk on your talk page? — CpiralCpiral 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I am sorry for all that nonsense before. Let's just start from scratch. Maybe we'd be a good team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmenta (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'd like to start by cleaning up our clutter on talk:Earth, moving personal stuff here or there. Then I'd love to team up.

But I warn you, I know a lot of facts, and I state them as I hope they fit. But if you take historical facts personally, or behavioral guides personally, you'll be tempted to act in such a way that will have the result (unintended of course) of wasting my time (but probably not yours). You have to be pre-subjected to facts I already know so that then my time is our time. If I know much more than you, you will have to invest much your time catching up to me. As an extreme example, for every hour we spend together on a particular topic, you'll spend ten apart studying that topic. (But that is the usual relationship for the protege.) And we'll be following many style guides that we'll have to be "on the same page" on. I admit I will have to re-read the WP:Five pillars, but it's about time for that again. Please scan it. If we both scan it, whoever acquires the most facts wins "leader" for a while. One more thing. It takes longer to write a good response, a thoughtful, guided response, than it does to read it. If one will try to squeeze as much meaning out of a written piece as possible, they will have to spend a lot of time studying word choice and read it several times very slowly.

All this is provisional. I'm teetering on the brink of having to either get a day job or do a huge physical and legal work on an old house. — CpiralCpiral 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to tell you, sorry if I came across as competitive. I've always had a problem with word choice. I try not to use words negatively for the most part. I try not to use divisive sentences with "winner", "loser", "leader" etc even with my most loved ones. I'm sorry if I did that although I don't really remember it. I try to read what I wrote but sometimes I miss things. I hope I haven't given you the impression that I want to race you, or know more than you. I see you have a Degree in Electrical Engineering. I'm sure it gave you the opportunity to learn about the Earth. I certainly dont have a degree in EE, but If I knew that much stuff than I did for my stupid degree, I'd be editing this article better. Not better than you though of course. If I may say, "you rock"

Thank you! Try an objective review of the post by using the "Page Preview" button while making multiple drafts until the grand utopian vision comes. — CpiralCpiral 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm a newbie and this is the very first time I've heard of a "mentorship" within Wikipedia. This is a little scary. I'm new to Wikipedia except for looking up stuff. I'm a new User I mean. I've left comments on other Talk pages and now I'm worried I made some kind of commitment to the article! If that's true, I need to fix it because that is something I'm not confident I can do. I'm a newbie...not a steward, but I guess that's what having a mentor is for. LOLI'm not on the computer a lot. I'm so sorry to sound so dumb, but is ten years for the protege versus an hour for the mentor really the average? I hope you are exaggerating. Sheesh. I hope I can be a mentor much sooner than that! LOL:! Can you send a link about all this? I'll look it up too. I've never had a mentor before. That's an interesting thought.

It's a 10:1 ratio for master:student. That way most questions that can be uncovered are answered, and customize the session to the priority--the student. It takes ten years to master anything.

On a side note, I tried to indent the paragraphs above but it wouldnt work so I had to skip that. How I indent paragraphs?

See Help:Wikitext. I'd link you directly to the ":" trick there, but you'll probably enjoy scanning for it yourself because you'll learn a lot of other neat tricks on the way. — CpiralCpiral 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the mentorship information on the link you posted. Can you post that, please? Marmenta (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, lets start with Wikipedia:Mentorship

BTW you inspired me to archive some old discussions. I've been meaning to do that. Archives 1 and 2 are mostly talk between me and my mentor. — CpiralCpiral 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to go to each article talk page and explain to the Admin. Good idea? Marmenta (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We can make the talk page views however we edit them. Not even a (typical) admin can edit history.

Ok. Found it. I have questions though. Is this a voluntary or involuntary arrangement? I cannot find the involuntary mentor decision. Would that come to me or do you have it? Where would I find that? I had no idea I was sanctioned. Did the Admin assign me to you? What determines who I'm assigned to? I should probably be asking the Admin this. I'll ask the admin that runs the earth talk page. Marmenta (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We just begin voluntary compliance with Wikipedia:Mentorship. Let's read it and decide if we can do it. Like I said I don't know how much more time I can commit to WP. No, let's not mess with the police. They're busy administering high justice. For now, I am the provisional mentor. There are many who wait for the call of that template on your user page. Then you pick one of the responders, or not. Certainly if you have time and interest it's the best call I could ever advise to anyone anywhere. I love Wikipdia and the way it evolves my thinking. I'm a better person because of Wikipedia, esp. due to the emotional control issues I used to feel when on the talk page. The WP:TPG guidelines help. They take years to habitualise, but it's worth it. Along the way, ya burn emotionally occasionally, just as you would in real life, dealing with others, but then ya learn to be objective and take nothing personally, just like it said. Now I'll just go and cleanup the talk page we were on, talk:Earth. Any other suggestions? — CpiralCpiral 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but if it's voluntary, I'd like to ask that "Gandalf 61" user to be my mentor. Marmenta (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

None taken. LOL! But that's not the way it usually works. Like WP:Mentorship says, you advertise with the template on your user talk page, then wait for messages on your talk page, and set up the mentorship there. If Gandalf61 is in a grumpy mood, he may ignore you. That's no laughing matter. — CpiralCpiral 01:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk earth: thanks

Note: this section moved from talk:Earth and edited by Cpiral.

Cprial,

It's Cpiral, as in Spiral, Cee?

Thank you for your advice. It is certainly appreciated. I went back and re-formatted my post and it does read better. I greatly appreciate your compliments on the recording.

Welcome.

A name isn't grammar. It's a name. In my post, I've explained what grammar is and it isn't merely my logic. The definition of grammar is accepted universally and simply stating the name "Earth" is somehow grammar is not correct. As for the "Names" part, "The World" and "The Earth" are different names for the same thing. Perhaps the "Blue Planet" and "Terra" could be pulled down to the "Name" section? What do you think?

The Name and etymology section could have a paragraph for Name, and a paragraph for Etymology in that section. Now you get to check out the article paragraph before doing so. I saw that Frankenstein at talk earth. It needs one topic per paragraph... sort of. Uhm, see what they say, eh? Ask me from there :-).

I have not or will not change anything in the article until we've discuss this. Forgive me for my ignorance as I am a newbie, but I didn't realize that a single person was delegated to manage the improvements for this particular article. Is this really true? I didn't know that. Perhaps an admin will clear that up for me.

It's just you on a wiki. Wiki's are amazing. You're King of a democracy, if you can accept that dichotomy.

Why don't I manage the recordings so you don't have to. I'm trying to help you here. I obviously haven't updated the recording yet. Perhaps I was too hasty in just stating I was going to change the recording. I would certainly like more opinions on this matter. Again, I am approaching these recordings for the sake of reading comprehension.

What precisely do you mean by "recording"? We say "page", meaning "what is viewed" from rendering the current version of the wikitext. I think you are carrying "spoken word" terminology.

<Your answer> (behind an added colon for added indention.

Also, I would like your opinion on the "Oxford Spelling" sentence.

See the MOS for when to capitalize or phrase those ways. There are links on the discussion page. Do a browser search on "celestial".

I am also curious as to this "sub-section" as there is no text in the main Section. Is it possible to put that subsection somewhere else? When I record this section, how do you suggest I include this section? Here's how I delivered it in the recording:

The section has no intro text, but that blankness, although ugly to me too, is actually filled with the subsections. That blank should usually have an intro. Just add something that intro's the subsections. I'm sure that's exactly how one might accidentally blank a section.

"Earth" Section 2: Chronology: See "History of the Earth." On first and second hearing it seems that this doesn't assist the very audience that these recordings are for. Reading comprehension is everything. Can you see my dilemma?Marmenta (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

May I begin assuming you are that audience, that you are actually blind? I'm dumb about that technology. Would you like me to learn? It reads like a "hatnote" at the top and beginning of most all WP articles. It's to be ignored because it is not the actual content of this article, but just an ad for another, related article. In this case it's at the top of a section, and not called "hatnote" but sort of the same thing. Maybe it's what is termed an epigraph? — CpiralCpiral 01:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of helpfulness, I looked up instructions on talk page layouts and I thought this was really cool:

Separate multiple points with whitespace: If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line). Whitespace is not necessary if your post is indented with colons; simply starting another line with the same indentation level will have an appropriate gap in the output. Whitespace is also not necessary between any lines within an indented or bulleted list, and actually increases the complexity of the generated HTML code, which can have accessibility implications.

And the rendering adds whitespace in places itself, like behind bullets, in links, between headings, etc. But if you put two newlines together, it's probably not what you wanted. It'll render with too much whitespace.

Thank you again for the instruction. I'm glad I looked this up or else I would have been confused. I'm glad these things are written down. It never occurred to me to check the guidelines but I'm glad I did. I hope I'm not reading it wrong. Thank you for posting that link. I appreciate it. :D Marmenta (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are curious about Wikipedia, and want to be an "in charge" article ambassador for a day, and steward your various and growing ocean of concerns here for years, put this on your talk page: {{subst:dated adoptme}}. Bravo on your spoken word stuff, and for recognizing there is a serious lack of a reading comprehension tool on this article. My only "beef" is with editors who don't know how to feed and care for an article I'm observing in an objective and civil manner. And I'd like to think they are not my beef, they're Wikipedia's anatomical requirements. In fact Wikipedia eats up too much of my processor time, and I will soon be off of Wikipedia for a long time in order to survive these fascinating and educational ordeals Wikipedia makes possible by people like us. But first I will edit the Formation section. You'll see. — CpiralCpiral 18:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a little confused, but perhaps it's because I am a "newbie". Is a single person delegated to watch this article? Is that changed every day with different editors accepting that role? I truly don't know. I like the idea, though! I certainly wouldn't want to be "ambassador" or "steward" for this article or any article for that matter. Is there main admins responsible for different articles?

No single person. See WP:TINC.

I would very much like your opinion on the points I made regarding Grammar, Comprehensions, etc. I certainly would like the questions to be addressed primarily. I think they're pretty important points. How should I record the "Chronology" Section to make it comprehensible? Should I go to the subsection and read from "History of the Earth"? Can I go to another PD source and insert that information in the recording only as a reader's note? If I do that, should I cite it in the recording?

I look forward to your "Formation" edits. I'm excited to see it! And THANK YOU for your compliment on the recording!

You're welcome, but of course, it's here now, where it belongs. Comeradery is personal user page stuff, not objective article stuff.

Note: I keep forgetting to put the tildes at the bottom. Sorry for the confusion. I'll get it! Marmenta (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We all go through that.

Cprial, you seem angry. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope I didn't offend you with my choice of mentors. I can see why by reading this page. Perhaps this was a bad idea. I won't be back on this page anymore. Please do not post on mine. Marmenta (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I had just finished editing a post on your page. No I'm not the least bit angry. Ya gotta believe me that you are fearing your own illusion. You can learn to deal with that here, on Wikipedia by working with it on any talk pages with anyone. See Projection_(psychology) and the articles at Category:Cognitive_biases.— CpiralCpiral 02:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Earth talk:grammar discussion

Moved from talk:Earth, with implicit permission from Marmenta.

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. A "Name" is a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known. Etymology is a chronological account of the birth and development of a particular word or element of a word, often delineating its spread from one language to another and its evolving changes in form and meaning. Synonyms: word history, word lore, historical development. The occasion when it is appropriate to capitalize the name based on whether it's a proper noun, verb, or count noun, and other "grammatical conventions" is grammar. Why is it in the "Name and Etymology" section? "The Earth" and "the Earth" is not exactly different terminology.... and it isn't etymology, and it is not a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known. Why is it in the Name and Etymology section? If people need to know when to capitalize the "The", or the "E" in "Earth", there are Dictionaries. 1100 Wikipedians don't go to this article to find out whether the name is spelled with a capital or lowercase when it is used absolutely. Chances are they skip right over it. I suggest a new section called "Earth: Grammatical Conventions" be constructed. Grammar is not exactly as critical as the actual facts people are looking for when they read this article. The purpose of all articles in any encyclopedia, is Comprehension. Read the following sentence from the article: "Oxford spelling recognizes the lowercase form as the most common, with the capitalized form as a variant of it." To me, this is baffling. Phew. Ironically the section below "Name and Etymology" called "Chronology"; something I think we'd agree is WAY more important then how the term almost exclusively exists in lowercase when appearing in common phrases, even without "the" preceding it, is completely blank. Marmenta (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I went back and re-formatted this post as one long paragraph. I'm learning. Marmenta (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• a blank section? Wait, does it have a subsection...
• Using your own logic, a name is a word, and a word involves grammar, so "Name" of "Name and Etymology" involves grammar in that section. Therefore I vote "No new section"; and I say wait, don't delete the parts about "the" or "earth" yet.
• MOS:CAPS#Celestial_bodies; (wikt:pedantic: me too, but not while "at work"!)
• That spoken article stuff mentioned in the title? Don't get me wrong I'm impressed, but I, for one, I'm glad there is no "update" here, because I personally have no idea why I should manage the improvements to the article that are specifically your spoken-word stuff you seem to do so well. I really don't. No idea.
• Follow the good practices and how-to's at WP:TPG. Here you have just "spilled out" 16 paragraphs, many of them one sentence, many of them oblivious to some TPG, talk-page-guideline. To garner the Wikipedia participants, switch to "Wikipedia talk page" guidelines. For a test (of participation) drive, try paring your expressed content down to a single paragraph, 500 words, focused on a single-topic subject line, just for grins.

— CpiralCpiral 08:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)