User talk:Preslethe

If I start an exchange of messages by posting at your Talk page, please, reply at your own page. I'll keep an eye on your page for a while to see whether you reply.

If you start an exchange of messages by posting at my Talk page, please, look for my reply on my Talk page.

R'son-W would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact R'son-W to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Preslethe. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

I'd like to congratulate you on your editing. If I have undone your work or modified it further, it is no criticism of you, merely an honest difference of opinion. I hope that you will make many further contributions. Please drop me a line if I can help. - Taxwoman 08:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your work on Splendor in the Grass. I rewrote the plot summary from one which could only be called ignorant. You might be amused (or horrified!) to look back in the history and read it. This excellent film deserves more attention. Best, Tex 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know little or nothing about the locations used in the film. I would actually be surprised if anything besides exteriors were shot on Staten Island, though. It's easier to shoot interiors on a sound stage.

It's amazing how people can watch a perfectly straightforward movie and completely miss the point. I wonder what the person who wrote that "moral principles" travesty would make of Persona. Nice insight on your part, though, on the two scenes contrasting Deanie's mother and Bud's father. I have a particular interest in Inge, and this kind of careful construction of his screenplay is one reason why.

I had the experience of seeing this movie in 1961, when I was in high school. The impact on high school kids back then was remarkable. Fortunately that was before the days of ratings. I still think Pat Hingle was riveting, because I've known someone exactly like old Ace. Not my own father, thankfully. Best, Tex 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inge I've argued for the 'his' in the list 'Inge's Come Back, Little Sheba, his Bus Stop, and The Dark at the Top of the Stairs' in the past, and I aim to do it again. Without it, it is difficult for the casual reader, who may not be familiar with Inge's works, to tell whether 'Come Back, Little Sheba, Bus Stop,' refers to two plays, or three. Or maybe one with a very unlikely title. I think it's also possible to use a semicolon to clarify a list like that, but in this sentence, I think the 'his' is clearer. Best... Tex 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying dates

Hi, I saw the edits that you made on the DeSoto (automobile) article. Just as a heads up, we generally do not wiki-link dates unless there is a reason to do so that is relevant to material in the article itself. Over linking can be distracting for the reader. Stude62 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground

I understand that my reasoning may not have been clear, but it is hard to write a convincing explanation of argument in a one-line edit summary. The point I was trying to make is that lots of different TYPES of events can be considered terrorist, and the categorisation generally varies depending on the writer's point of view. For example, supporters of the Palestinian cause will generally not refer to Hamas suicide bombings as 'terrorism', whereas opponents will almost always refer to them as such. The same label, and the same dispute, could apply to the French Resistance in World War 2, the American/British action in Iraq, and so on. So the problem is not that the category is broad, but that it is hard to find a completely neutral way of defining it. Cynical 16:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Droit de seigneur NPOV discussion

Why? Talk:Droit de seigneur --Boborok 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARTA

Thank you for reviewing my edits to the Atlanta article, specifically the Transportation section. You helped clarify the differences on the two reports that I cited, but you removed the mention of Lewis Black's opinion on MARTA. The opening track on his album, End of the Universe (which was recorded in front of a live audience in Atlanta), he talked about the traffic problems in Atlanta. His "crude" comments, although insightful, are notable (IMHO) and ought to be mentioned in the article about MARTA. Hence, I restored this piece on the article about MARTA (not directly on the Atlanta article). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this, and to provide you with an opportunity to form consensus, or to refute. --Ted 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

I just wanted to thank you for answering Levi P. I find his pugnacious attitude unpleasant and was not looking forward to having to educate yet another person on the inherent conflict with prescriptive claims about language and NPOV. So thanks for that; it's most appreciated.

I will confess that I am worried about your proposal—using a disputed term in a particular way in an article has a way of giving the article an implied bias in favor of that usage or meaning. I recognize that circumlocutions make for weak writing, but maintaining neutrality is paramount. The other difficulty with defining acronym and initialism as you propose is that there is a large class of things, such as the hybrid types, whose membership in one or the other categories defined by the "received" definitions of those words is questionable. I think that if we are going to "define terms" for the purpose of the article, our best bet would be some kind of ad hoc terminology that is not polluted by readers' preconceptions of what the terms might mean.

Again, thanks for your support. If you think the article is suffering at present from confusing and inconsistent circumlocutions, I am sure we can come to a satisfactory solution. Nohat 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US super power counterclaim

Hi,

I might have used the wrong term to "counter" the claim that US is a super power, but what I mean is (I hope you understand), that the sentence helps to create NPOV by saying that even though the US is a super power, it can't push around everybody else or fight anybody that opposes its policies, because it's "power" is limited by military, political, and economic constraints. If the sentence is taken out, then just by saying the US is the world's sole super power would sound a little arrogant, and that would not make a very good NPOV statement.

I'm not exactly sure why you still want to take the sentence out, but the issue regarding that sentence had been discuess in the talk page a while ago and the argument is to keep only if it mentions that being a super power is always limited by constraints, which the sentence does by saying "like any other nation". Please don't waste each other's time and effort by trying to delete something not worth deleting in the beginning. You can help out the US article by adding references or help to create a more NPOV in the "human rights" section, or help me summarize the rest of the article and find nice pictures to accompany it.--Ryz05 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean following "his" election in 1992? Who is he? And what election? I wrote down Bill Clinton's presidential election until you deleted it. Please specify.--Ryz05 06:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you and I were editing at about the same time. I saw your specification of Clinton and agreed with it. My removal of it was an accident I was unaware of until I got your note. Apologies. President Lethe 07:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding a little angry, but thank you for the response. Also, please do not change the thumbnails as the pictures are just fine. --Ryz05 23:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may be just fine for you. But what if they're not just fine for me, or for someone else? The easiest way to make sure that every reader can make the thumbnails "just fine" for himself or herself, without his or her going into the article and changing the thumbnail size specifications, is, as I've said repeatedly at the talk page (with nobody contradicting me) to do away with the specifications and leave it up to each reader's set preference. This is a simple question of probability, it seems to me. It seems to me that the likeliest way of giving every reader thumbnails of the size that that reader chooses is to leave it up to that reader’s thumbnail-size setting under "my preferences", rather than to go injecting one or a few editors' size preferences into the article. This is about pleasing you and other readers—all of them. If you'd like the thumbnails to be no bigger than a certain size, just change it in your own preferences; no need to subject all readers to your personal preference. The setting in your preferences exists so you can affect thumbnail sizes in all articles you view without going into the article and specifying thumbnail sizes. In addition to the many variables from user to user, there is also the dynamic aspect of section length: what may look good one day on the same computer with the same settings may look bad the next day, when someone has shortened or lengthened the nearby text. It's perfectly O.K. for you to specify your own thumbnail size in your own settings, just as it's perfectly O.K. for me to set my own size in my setting, and for me to make it bigger than yours or smaller than yours or the same size. But why should either of us be trying to make the other use a certain size?

... But you win against me on this one. The change earlier today was the last one I have any plan to do. Congrats. President Lethe 02:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Dime

Hey I saw your edit on Dime (United States coin) and I'm wondering if it should really be there. I saw the commercial last night and they're made by a small mint in Rhode Island not the United States Mint. I think at the very least, that it should be made clear that it is not affilliated with the Mint. I don't know if you knew any of this, so I thought I would bring it up with you here to see if you agree or not. Bobby 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey take a look now and see what you think. I agree that it should be there, if for no other reason to demonstrate that there is some interest in the redesign. I just added some clarification. Look OK? Bobby 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Protocol

Well hello, Mr. President :) - thanks for your help with editing this translation and for making all the corrections. I must not disobey :) Although... what exactly did you mean by noting in the edit summary, "There are at least 2 earlier ones (1830; 1850)"? The 1852 London protocol was a peace treaty and a revision of the earlier 1850 London convention in the war of Schleswig. For this one, there was no other earlier version that would be also referred to as the "London Protocol", albeit other numerous attempts at truce and peace in that war took place. That's what the original German article seems to be stating too. Or am I not understanding the matter properly..? you got me wondering... Kind regards - Introvert ~? 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Introvert. Thanks for your note. My entire knowledge of the London Protocols is based on this Wikipedia article. What I mean is this:

1. There was an agreement on 3 February 1830. It was called London Protocol. This is according to the article.

2. There was an agreement on 2 August 1850. The article calls this "an earlier protocol"—which I have interpreted (perhaps erroneously) as meaning that this agreement was called London Protocol.

3. There was an agreement on 8 May 1852. It was called London Protocol. This is according to the article.

Numbers 1 and 2 are both precede number 3. So, when the article says that the thing in 1852 was a revision of "a"/"the" "earlier protocol", I read it as being possibly about something from 1830 or something from 1850—until it specifies that it's a revision of the one from 1850. And, as I said, the text leads me to think that the one in 1850 was indeed called London Protocol.

But, now, thinking about it, I see that perhaps No. 2 wasn't actually called London Protocol. Was it called London Protocol or was it not? I now understand that I am unsure of this. If the one in 1850 wasn't called London Protocol, then perhaps the wording about the one in 1852 should say it was a revision of "an earlier agreement" or something like that—just something that doesn't confusingly use the word protocol again.

Sorry if my note is a little rambly. But, if either one of us was confused, it's a sign that we should work on making the text clearer.

You may also have noticed my hidden text about the 1877 one, which says "Was the British neutrality agreement PART OF the protocol or something done IN EXCHANGE FOR the protocol? The present wording is unclear." If you know the answer, we could clarify this too.

I look forward to your reply—and thank you very much for your translation work.

President Lethe 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. President,

Thanks for your great edit of the article. Being the one who translated the "1852" section, let me try to understand and clarify the questions raised above: while the German article itself was vague on the "earlier" protocol, my understanding is that the 1850 version was not the London Protocol. I introduced the word "earlier", because stylistically there was no apparently more elegant way to reproduce the original German text. More strictly translated, the first sentence states that

"The international treaty which became known as the London Protocol 
is the second protocol, since the first one had already been ratified 
on August 2nd, 1850 by the major Germanic powers of Austria and Prussia."

You might agree with me that this is poor style, and sounds bad even in the German original, so I re-worded it. You can use the more literal translation here to come to your own conclusion about what was actually meant, or perhaps anyone else who wants to refer to the German version, which is posted on the article's talk page.

The article does state, however, in the second sentence, that the 1852 version is the actual London Protocol. The use of actual to me indicates that the earlier version was perhaps merely a draft or the precursor to the actual London Protocol, so it was not referred to by that name.

You might have also noticed that I changed the passage about the conflicting laws of succession which were modified to accomodate the terms of the treaty. If you refer back to the original text, the translation here is also quite literal and left little room for ambiguity, but for semantic reasons I found it difficult to translate; you edited it well though! Anyone who is familiar with the topic might be able to correct any errors that were introduced either through translation loss or already present in the original version. - (Patrick 14:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi guys, first of, I am sorry about the delay with my response and I want to thank you both for your great work on the article, for your time and your comments here, and also for the kind words I do not deserve :) -- I was not involved in translation work here, I was only reviewing the text per Patrick's request which he had posted on WP:PNT.

Now to answer Mr. President's questions and trying my best to clarify the subject, with a disclaimer: I am not a historian professionally.

I should first point out that this article describes 4 different, unrelated conventions that only happen to share the "London Protocol" title. 1830, 1852, 1877, 1944 protocols -- those are four different treaties corresponding to different events in history. The London Protocol of 1830 is a separate document not related to the following ones. The London Protocol of 1877, and the London Protocoll of 1944 - they are each independent from one another and not related to the Protocols of 1852/1850.

Perhaps the very first introductory statement should be rephrased and/or expanded and say something to this effect, e.g. The London Protocol is a name used to describe several different, unrelated historical documents that share the title. (I am relying on you for styling my English correctly and am being very grateful in advance for all your help!) Perhaps section titles could be more specific; if document names could be used for section titles (either similarly to German article or simply, "London Protocol of 1830"... etc.), that should help potential readers' confusion.

Secondly, regarding the most confusing section about the London Protocol of 1852/1850 in the war of Schleswig 1848-1851. From what I've been able to learn through quick on-line reading: sometimes, the earlier August 1850 document is called a Convention; then other times, while the earlier document may be referred to as the Protocol, the May 1852 document could be called the London Treaty. However most often, both documents are being referred to as London Protocols, with understanding that the latter London Protocol of 1852 is a revised version of the former London Protocol of 1850 in the same historic event. I cannot insist one way or the other; I am also not quite clear as to whether the earlier protocol in fact retained significance on its own after 1852. That said, I believe that the German article author's approach looks solid, and is helping confusion better. I believe that for now, it is a good idea to just follow his construct and refer to both treaties, of August 1850 and of May 1852, as "London Protocols", have them in a single section entitled after the latter 1852 agreement. Especially since this article incorporates the translation of the German article. Let's leave the complicated decision and clarification to the experts in the field. I am hoping that my suggestion would make sense to you.

Finally, I am thinking that this article, essentially a disambiguation, could be split into four separate ones before long, as soon as someone with special knowledge could oversee it and perhaps add more information. This will help referencing the various London Protocols from other articles. And let me mention again that it would certainly be a very good idea to seek an expert's advice if you think that the matters are not as clear as they should be (for instance, we could place an {{expert}} tag on the article).

I am sincerely hoping that my explanations didn't confuse the matters even worse :) Thank you both for your time and for this interesting discussion. Regards - Introvert ~? 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found out.....

Good point. Soryy. Do people normally revert themselves? Simply south 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scalawag" (Re: Edit summary)

It wasn't intended to be offensive - rather, it was meant as a Strong Bad quote. --Quietust 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, O.K. I love Strong Bad, but didn't remember that quote. Sometimes, I doubt that what looks like a bit of rudeness really is rudeness. I actually wondered that in your case, too. Sorry I misjudged you. I bother to make such comments because, sometimes, when one Wikipedian is bashing another, the bashing can be stopped if a stranger comes along and speaks up. President Lethe 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't remember it, watch the Strong Bad Email local news - it's right at the beginning, and a funny song. --Quietust 19:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Johns

I noticed some edits you made to First Coast, and you changed spellings from "St. Johns" to "Saint Johns." The legal name of the county and river is not "Saint;" it is never spelled out. I've changed it but I wanted to drop you a note so you don't change anything else to that effect in the future. See also: Talk:St. Johns River. Mike H. That's hot 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inge and the semicolon

I think I shall have more fun at his expense than he does at mine! Tex 22:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I have proposed a solution to the current edit war over categorizing clothing articles at Talk:History_of_Western_fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War. Please join the discussion. - PKM 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US native speaker percentage

Hi, it just occured to me that difference in our percentages (79% vs. 82%) could be as we are using differently dated info. What year is the 214.8 mil figure? Signature^brendel 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Adminship

I like your work done on United States, so I would like to nominate you for Adminship. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 06:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a compliment. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

That's not the way I learned it years (and years, and...) ago, but I'll defer. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, RadioKirk. Nice to hear from you.

The sentence in question:

She will start at Bedales, a well known British public school, in September 2006.

"She" = subject

"will start at Bedales, a well known British public school, in September 2006" = predicate

"will" = helping/auxiliary verb

"start" = main verb

"at Bedales, a well known British public school" = prepositional phrase modifying "start"

"at" = preposition

"Bedales" = proper noun; object of "at"

"a well known British public school" = appositive phrase to "Bedales"

"a" = indefinite article for school

"well" = adverb modifying "known" (See "adverb" area of http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=well)

"known" = adjective modifying "school" (See "adjective" area of http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=known)

"British" = adjective modifying "school"

"public" = adjective modifying "school"

"school" = noun; appositive to "Bedales"

"in September 2006" = prepositional phrase modifying "start"

"in" = preposition

"September 2006" = object of "in"

There's no need for a hyphen between the adverb "well" and the adjective that it modifies, "known". Not all adjectives end in ly. A hyphen between the two could be seen as implying that the school is known by a well (e.g., a hole for extracting groundwater).

The mere question of whether something is a superlative isn't the point. For example, in "the most instantly visible cloud", there's no question that "cloud" is noun, "visible" is adjective, "instantly" is adverb modifying "visible", and "most" is adverb modifying "instantly".

The matter about "best known" / "best-known" is that the superlative form of the adjective (the unmodified adjective is good) is the same as the superlative form of the adverb (the unmodified adverb is well)—and, so, without confusion, "the best known school" could mean "the best school that is known" instead of "the school that is known best". This is why a hyphen between best (as a form of well) and its adjective is usually a good idea.

The time to put a hyphen between an adverb and an adjective is when the adverb could be mistaken as another adjective—and this doesn't happen with well in this sentence, though it would happen with best.

Thanks for all your work on the Emma Watson article. I haven't really done much there in months, but I remember you as someone who kept things in check.

President Lethe 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperforeignism (Taj Mahal)

I agree with the pronunciation of Taj Mahal given in the article, but I think the blooper mentioned therein reflects ignorance rather than hyperforeignism. It is hyperforeignism when one applies rules of a language to exceptions in the same language. It is ignorance if one applies rules of French pronunciation to Hindi. I personally think that the example is out of place. Hence my edit. 138.89.21.183 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your message. What shall I call you, 138.89.21.183?

I grasp your distinction between intralingual and interlingual errors—but I'm not sure it's shared by all with views on this matter.

For example, that section of the "Hypercorrection" article defines a hyperforeignism thus: "When pronunciation and spelling of foreign loan words are erroneously based on rules that apply to other foreign words but not to those in question, the phenomenon is hyperforeignism. The following are examples."

It doesn't say "other words from the same foreign language".

I think the mindset is simply "In many foreign words, j has the sound [ʒ]—and Taj is a foreign word and so gets [ʒ] for its j."

We describe this same interligual issue in the bits about French forte vs. Italian forte, about pronunciation of ch in machismo, about the j in Beijing (same issue as that in Taj Mahal), and about the French acute accent on the Italian word grande.

Obviously, though, the difference between your idea and my idea hinges on whether we count these interlingual issues as hyperforeignism or not.

By the way, others may receive your edits better if (1) you use edit summaries and (2) your edit summaries are clearer than "(Ignorance)".

President Lethe 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

I wanted to thank you for your good edits on United States. It is nice to see another stickler for good, thoughtful use of language at work. Keep it up! --Guinnog 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Thanks for your good works, too.) Did any particular edit prompt your message? — President Lethe 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just your general demeanour in the US article. Your reply below is a nice example which occurred after I issued the compliment. Please keep up the good work. --Guinnog 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

science and usa

I think that you took out some very important information with the science of the USA, if you wanted to correct what is said to improve it then do so, but it is deletes like yours that minimise. do you inderstand the importance of the radical transmutation of the elements, no, other wise you would correct the wording only. Please reinstate, it lies with you. Roddy young RoddyYoung 10:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RoddyYoung.

I had no intention of belittling your contribution when I deleted it; I thought of the possible effects that my deletion may have on you and others. Your contribution is also part of a discussion at the Talk page for the United States article—a discussion about mentioning science of the U.S. in the U.S. article.

Your paragraph, appended to the section on U.S. history, came after a steady, paragraph-by-paragraph chronological organization of some basic points of history, which ended with events of the last five years. Your paragraph and the one immediately preceding it looked like this:

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. foreign policy focused on the threat of terrorist attacks. In response, the government under George W. Bush began a series of military and legal operations termed the War on Terror, beginning with the overthrow of Afghanistan's Taliban government in October 2001. Soon after, the "War on Terror" continued with the controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq, with support from 30 governments known as 'the coalition of the willing'.

Scientific discovery has kept the USA at the cutting edge of international deplomacy. Starting with the fission nuclear bomb in 1945 the USA has developed faster than any other nation when it comes to science. Nuclear weapons have been converted into electricity that keeps the internet up and running. Intellegence and design have played a major part in the United States of America's history.

Often, when I see that an editor has added new information to a Wikipedia article, and I think the information is worthwhile in that article, but I think it could be better placed in the article or better written, I try to make the improvements myself.

In your paragraph, though, I counted at least fifteen problems. Feel free to consider them if you end up reworking your paragraph. I'm very much for giving things multiple chances at Wikipedia rather than deleting them in the hope that they never come back.

I think it's worth noting that the only other editor to express an opinion on your addition seemed not to have a very favorable view of it.

1. Your paragraph came in the history section. It may have been better placed in the economy section.

2. Your paragraph didn't fit with the chronological flow of the preceding paragraphs.

3. Your edit referred mentioned "the USA". The style of the rest of the article is to use the two-letter abbreviation.

4. Your "USA" lacked the periods ("U.S.A.") that are the style in the rest of the article.

5. "at the cutting edge" is somewhat clichéd and abstract: better avoided in encyclopedic language.

6. While there is a connection between science and diplomacy, your paragraph covered it in such a way, with so few words, that many leaders may well have been left wondering "Huh? Science and diplomacy?"

7. The idea that the U.S. is at the cutting edge of international diplomacy is strongly POV and would need cited reputable sources.

8. The idea that science is what keeps the U.S. at this cutting edge also would need some evidence and citations for readers to grasp it and not take it as a matter of opinion.

9. deplomacy is not the usual spelling.

10. That this "faster than any other nation" scientific development began only in 1945, with the fission bomb, also would need some reputable citations to fit in this article.

11. In this article, the tendency is to prefer a comma after "1945" in such instances as this.

12. "USA" again.

13. The claim about developing faster than any other nation, regardless of the 1945 starting point, also would need reputable citations to fit in this article. (In this article, citations are a big help in avoiding edit wars about point of view.)

14. Mentions of speed can function as weasel words to imply superiority where there may not be. If, for example, we mention that one vehicle is traveling at 100 km/h and another is travelling at only 10 km/h, readers may jump to the conclusion that the former vehicle is placed well in advance of the latter vehicle on a journey. But, if the readers are also aware that the latter vehicle has been travelling for 20 hours, while the former has been at it for only 6 minutes, then they will grasp that, although moving more slowly, the latter vehicle is actually 200 km from the starting point while the former vehicle is only 10 km from the starting point. Relations of speed should be expressed in ways that also make clear the relative positions apart from speed.

15. "when it comes to science" is not the writing style preferred in this article or at Wikipedia in general.

16. Your paragraph draws the connection between nuclear weapons and controlled nuclear generation of electricty in a strange way, with the statement that the weapons have been converted—and not just into devices that generate electricity, but into electricity itself. This brings to mind the matter–energy conversion of Star Trek.

17. That the Internet is maintained by converted (American?) nuclear weapons also seems a strange statement.

18. It is Wikipedia style to capitalize "Internet".

19. "up and running" is another clichéd expression that is better avoided at Wikipedia.

20. Intellegence is not the usual spelling.

21. Whether "intelligence" in this sentence means "the smartness of people" or "spying" is not immediately clear.

22. That science has played a major role in the history of a modern, developed country is a given.

23. There is mention of "United States of America". The style of the rest of the article is to drop "of America".

24. The "of America's" possessive is awkward.

I hope you understand that, when a paragraph has an average of six problems per sentence, and has so many issues of questionable facts, unusual spelling, style that seems to indicate that the writer has paid little attention to the style of the rest of the article, and rather long leaps from one subject or thought to another, editors may feel inclined simply to remove the paragraph until someone else reworks it.

Again, no personal insult was intended. Because I don't know you and haven't ever seen you do something horrible, I have no reason to feel like insulting you personally.

Unfortunately, your message to me does have some likelihood of making me suspicious of your future edits, not only because of the run-on sentences, lack of capitalization, and unusual spelling, but also because of the supposition about my understanding of "the importance of the radical transmutation of elements". The opinion expressed in the edit summary you left when posting this message at my Talk page, and your unorthodox placement of your post, also lend to this leeriness.

I hope you'll contribute to the Talk:United States discussion of bringing more science into the article and to the article itself, but keeping in mind some of the issues I've mentioned about the addition you made yesterday.

Below the box in which you edit articles, there is a boldfaced warning: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

I intend you no ill will, and I hope you enjoy your time editing at Wikipedia. I know it can be fun, and I know having one's work removed can be a trying experience. Again, no intended personal offense.

President Lethe 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Punjab in Hypercorrection

Hey there, you recently told me on my talk-page to leave the word 'Punjab' in the above article as a link to the disambiguation page, saying that it applied to all uses of the word. Now, I accept this, and I know what you're talking about. However, I'd just like to alert you to a sentence on the WP:DPL page:

Occasionally, links can simply be removed. A term should usually not be linked more than once in one article or section. Also, when the link refers to a general meaning of the word, for which there is no relevant article, removing may be the most sensible option. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Take care not to remove useful links, though.

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending myself , I was just wondering whether I could justify removing that link, since there really was no specific article that would connect with the word.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, it's just that I'm fairly new here, and would like to know whether I'm getting things right or not. Have a great day, — riana_dzasta • t • c 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Riana_dzasta. Thanks for the reply! In this particular case, as I see it, it's not that there is NO specific article that connects with the word: it's that there are SEVERAL words, and we've decided we do want the link in that paragraph. That's why we keep it linked to the page that gives the many meanings of Punjab. But, yes, generally, it's good to avoid the disambiguation pages. Keep up the good work! — President Lethe 15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's alright then. Cheers! — riana_dzasta • t • c 02:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future; you seem like an excellent contributor, and I have no doubt that you will be an outstanding admin someday. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fish is only a lobster if...

Hey President Lethe. Nice to hear from you. I'm sure you will not be surprised to hear that I read Nohat's newfound endorsement of dictionaries with pleasure, consternation and, like you, not a small bit of amusement. But hey, we are all allowed to reevaluate even our most tightly held convictions, and in doing so change our stances on the most controversial of subjects. I have no doubt his recent epiphany will lead to his leading the charge to "narrow" the definition used in the article so as to conform to the dictionary. In fact, I will begin holding my breath...now! BTW, I posted this here because it was quite a while ago that you posted on my talkpage, and I was not sure if you would still be checking it. I didn't want you to think that I did not appreciate the link. Levi P. 06:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for your message, Levi P. It was only a few days ago that I decided to post the header about keeping a conversation at ONE user's Talk page. Well, I DO have my doubts that the "Acronym and initialism" article will be changed—but I was still intrigued by the pro-dictionary post at that other article's Talk page. Incidentally, that section of "Talk:Dutch language ended up being a disappointement to me. I repeatedly asked two simple yes-or-no questions there and, though several responses came to my posts, nobody ever just answered the questions. I've given up on them, at least for now. Anyway, nice to hear from you. — President Lethe 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly-funded health care

Hello, Preslethe. When you requested the moved of Publicly-funded health care, it appears that you did not put a notice on the talk page or create a place for discussion. Instructions for how to do so are at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm going to put the request at the top of the list and put a notice on the talk page. A makeshift place for discussion was created by Pmanderson, but the example on Requested Moves should be used in the future. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — President Lethe 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gemination

Many thanks for taking the time to write that interesting discussion on my talk page. I'd never heard [wɪθ] (or at least never noticed hearing it), so I've certainly learnt something new today! Arbitrary username 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that unvoiced th in with is more common in the U.S. and Canada, while the voiced version may be more common in the U.K.

When I think of accents that convert th to f and v, "wivvat" and "wiffat" both seem likely (for "with that") to me.

President Lethe 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. --Mr.Executive 08:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello info about Coolcaesar

Since you made your comments about Coolcaesar on the Requests for Arbitration, much more evidence has been added by other users. I have not compared them to your comments, but just to give you a heads up in case you want to elaborate your comment. Have a good day. --69.227.173.154 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comment about Coolcaesar

Hello, I just had to say you put the statement well in the ArbCom case against Coolcaesar. I just think it is sad that everyone else is cross examined for trying to end a dispute involving one editor. It seems like the creator of the ArbCom case is getting slandered for trying to end the bad habits of one editor. I think that they forget that this is a case against him, not a case against everyone that commented, and their history, and it seems downright wrong that all these people can manage to say is how wrong the creator was instead of just saying "yes, Coolcaesar was wrong, and a little time off to review rules and learn how to treat people will better the community". --69.227.173.154 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Evidence against Coolcaesar

Note that Coolcaesar made more comments after his obviously untrue apology. I linked his comments he made just 19 hours after he promised not to do it again. Just a heads up. --69.238.56.207 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of diligence

I hope you don't mind my addition of this to your user page; you can of course move it here if you prefer. The descriptive text on the award reads: "The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.", which I think sums you up perfectly. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! I got a star! Thanky ver' much. :-) — President Lethe 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted

Duly noted. Although the ABA article had become incredibly disorganized before I cleaned it up, I understand your point that calling it a pigpen may have been unnecessarily provocative. --Coolcaesar 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edits to U.S. Civil War History

As to your propositions re: what portions of America's mid-nineteenth century social order marshalled political tensions in the run-up to the Civil War, who dominated the contentious debate prior secession and combat . . . and what sovereign entities failed to viably address the socio-economic schism between North and South and thereby potentially avoid duly armed engagement between a muddled mass, I say only this,

Believe what you will, serve whom you must. But recognize in the midst of your service, that you are counting yourself amongst a minion that aims to propagate the agency of ambiguous imprecision on behalf of the very forces whose hegemonic complicity you seek to edit from history. Godspeed . . . you know, the One in whom you trust.

Finally, as the heritage of the referenced slave labor was surely --and exclusively -- African, and their nationality was certainly not American (as chattel has no nation), the place of their literal birth is wholly irrelevant . . . and any reference to this human property as African slave labor was/is wholly and historically appropriate.

Peace.

AWB

Hi! I thought I'd point you to this tool which I have a feeling you would enjoy using. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser allows semi-automated replacement of common errors. If you combine it with User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix, you can do amazing things. Apologies if you are not interested but I thought it might appeal to you. --Guinnog 11:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]