Drinkybird

Welcome!

Hello, Drinkybird, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Qwfp (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Capcom has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue with portmanteau

The word portmanteau appears to be used correctly in a number of articles from which yoy have removed the term. Can you explain why you feel it should be removed? Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Biostatistics constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you feel portmanteau is less preferable than other phrases. —EncMstr (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

re-EncMstr On your page it states that you prefer to be very to the point and can write in simple English. I don't believe that using a word that requires someone to follow a link to find out what said word means is simple English. Drinkybird (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Using a single word which combines the meanings and illustrates its own meaning is to the point. Though I can write using simple English, I usually write in "standard English" except on the Simple Wikipedia and when communicating with non-native English speakers who need it. —EncMstr (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my main point is that if in order to read an article all the way through and understand it, if one must click on links to words that are not common in order to understand the article, it defeats the point of the article being readable. If I were reading an actual hardbound encyclopedia, I wouldn't want to have to pull out the A-B book when reading and article about zoos. I know the internet makes that possible, but what exactly do portmanteaus have to do with Buckminster Fuller? Drinkybird (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point about having it linked in Bucky's article is valid—it should not be linked.

Ten or fifteen years ago copasetic sprang into widespread use. The first time encountered, one had to look it up or think hard and infer the meaning by context. But once learned, it's a shortcut to meaning, just like any word. —EncMstr (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics‎#Portmanteaus. —EncMstr (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm piggybacking on EncMstr by inviting members of the Literature Project to join the conversation. John Harvey (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up there. I think another point is that it seems Wikipedia is being used to popularize the term, when it should gain common usage of it's own validity. I don't believe this is a good way to be using Wikipedia. Drinkybird (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There as been little support for proliferation of the word. The only reason the edits seem to be reverted is because a consensus hasn't been reached, yet there is no consensus to have the word used everywhere either. If you'd like to support use of the word, I'd invite you to the conversation on the linguistics article. Drinkybird (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be demostrated that there is indeed the alleged lack of support "for proliferation". Merely suggesting that there might be is not enough (see Argumentum ad populum). You have now raised the issue; it is being discussed and hopefully a consensus for change will arise, and the result will be documented—at that point you will be welcomed with open arms to go around and undertake the tedious work of correcting articles to match an agreed policy.

Should a consensus about the use of the word "portmanteau" not arise as a result of discussion then the status quo would stand. It would be polite to resist from attempting to make any further changes until such a discussion and consensus is reached (my guess is that it'll probably take a couple of weeks). In the mean time, as has been demonstrated on this page, such edits are being seen as non-constructive—as they do not reflect any established or agreed policy. Please, hold fire, and work within the Wikipedia processes for a better end result. —Sladen (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it wasn't the best way to get started, but the conversation at the Talk:Portmanteau word talk page seemed to have stagnated, and now the conversation is back on. Sometimes things just need to get shaken up to get the issue noticed. I'll definitely hold for now. Drinkybird (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Biostatistics. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of J. Todd Anderson

A tag has been placed on J. Todd Anderson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)