User talk:Acjelen/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Josh Sawyer verb style[edit]


Clearly it's OK to write "After Lawrence graduated him," but that's NOT the prevalent style among professional writers. It's ridiculous to imply that the intransitive "graduating" does not convey meaning equal to your antiquated transitive. The intransitive incorporates the same meaning with better effect, preserving Sawyer as subject and thus balancing the sentence. Yes, this style is subjective, but the consensus of stylebooks and the world's best journalists suggest mine was the better choice.

Pedantically yours,

(insert smiley here)

Wow. Journalists. I guess I don't give a lot of weight or credence to the opinions of the "Fourth Estate". Nonetheless, I'm obviously on the losing side of this issue. Perhaps my next thing will be the equally misguided use of "technology". -Acjelen 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: This is not about politics, so don't let your biases cloud your judgment. I'd hope that as a librarian you'd recognize that news stories are easy to quantify, and, more importantly, you'd understand that (most) journalists know a fair bit about the craft of writing. Some probably even penned novels and essays on your shelves.

Or don't. Ignore convention. I'm sure Wikipedia will make an excellent literary stylebook.

My concerns with journalists are not political, at least not in any right-left kind of way. I just don't see the press as a separate class (or "estate") in society to be afforded special privileges or granted power over language. If the Associated Press has a special way it wants its writers to use English, that's fine. I'm not sure why I or any other non-AP writer needs to know about it. Of course, I may take things to the extreme. I had to take fewer anthropology courses in college because I refused to use APA citation style. -Acjelen 20:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT2: This begs the question: what sources guide your decisions? Intuition? During this discussion your complaints have evolved (first grammar then meaning then you throw in a non-sequitur about the opinions of journalists) but you've not cited a single source related to word usage.

AP style is not a "special class." Hogwash. I referenced it because it's universally accepted, it's easy to document and it facilitates clear & concise writing. I also cited Merriam-Webster usage but you continue to ignore that. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to find similar agreement in the OED or some other elitist reference work.

So I'll ask again: what resources led you to your initial correction of the term "graduating"?

Incidentally, I'm also curious to know if there is an accepted stylebook for Wikipedia--other than intuition, that is.


"after graduating from" = 16,348 stories

"after being graduated from" = 97 stories

MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE( "USAGE: In the 19th century the transitive sense (1a) was prescribed; the intransitive 'I graduated from college' was condemned. The intransitive prevailed nonetheless, and today it is the sense likely to be prescribed and the newer transitive (sense 1b) the one condemned. All three are standard. The intransitive is currently the most common, the new transitive the least common."

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STYLEBOOK AND LIBEL MANUAL: "Graduate is correctly used in the active voice: She graduated from the university. It is correct, but unnecessary, to use the passive voice:He was graduated from the university. Do not, however, drop from: She graduated from Harvard. Not: She graduated Harvard."

List of North American Wars[edit]

Would it be possible to create a link to a present or future article page for the war/battle you are quoting on the List page, so people can just click on it.

See my additions for an example.



Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me,, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Acjelen. I'm a Lawrence graduate myself, so I thought I'd say a quick hello. Maybe between the two of us, we could get the Lawrence University article a bit more respectable, eh? --BaronLarf 18:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


Glad to be of help ;) --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi Acjelen

Thanks for your contributions they are much appreciated. Please, if you find unwarrented speculation in Wikipedia articles remove it, rather than adding even more unwarrented speculation. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Rothesay[edit]

I don't know if the law actually says that anywhere in so many words. However this seems to be a reasonable inference that can be drawn from some of the people who held this title e.g. younger brothers of first-born sons who died young. Also under the normal laws of succession of all titles, if the Duke predeceases the monarch but leaves children, the title goes to his oldest surviving son. PatGallacher 10:47, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Boob tube[edit]

You made changes to this article. However:

  • you haven't really fixed anything in the Wikipedia:Cleanup entry, so by removing the cleanup notice from the page you're creating a false impression that the page is OK.
  • I for one wouldn't consider the British meaning to be slang. -- Smjg 17:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Memorial Day[edit]

Dang. My apologies for taking like a month to get back to you. I oughta log in more often :p

Anywho, yes, those two are among the cities given credence as possible birthplaces of Memorial Day. What in reality was happening is that the country was recovering from a war that resulted in a staggering loss of life. Many found similar ways to commemorate the dead and celebrate the end of the bloody and brutal conflict, and that's why so many cities claim to be the holiday's birthplace. The two given the most official notice are Waterloo and Boalsburg; Boalsburg for being one of the earliest cited celebrations and Waterloo for being the first to make it an official citywide holiday. In regards to Charleston, from a paper I recently wrote on the topic:

These small town accounts are far from definitive. In contrast, historian David Blight cites the first major celebration of something resembling what came to be called Decoration Day as occurring in Charleston, South Carolina, on May 1, 1865. The ceremony was carefully planned and incredibly elaborate. Beginning about a week before, freedmen began converting a local symbol of white power and the Southern aristocracy – the planters’ track – into a graveyard for former slaves who died fighting for freedom. The ceremony was specifically tailored so that it would be “…as South Carolina and the United States never saw before;” those involved wanted to make it so grandiose that it might leave an impression on all those who would see it. It took place at the track on May 1, 1865, beginning with three thousand newly freed school children marching around the track, singing John Brown’s Body, and carrying armfuls of roses. Three hundred newly freed women followed the children carrying baskets of flowers, wreaths, and crosses. The adults marched around the track while the children sang patriotic songs, and then a very serious, complex, and lengthy dedication was given by local ministers. The entire procession was a simultaneous celebration of freedom and mourning for those who had been lost. --Southpaw018 00:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In the words of a friend of mine...[edit]

We had just finished a spliff, and I asked for a fag, and he said, "You sound quite British today, your high-ness." 05:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wausau, unsigned edits, etc.[edit]

  1. You may not have known (?) that the whole Town of Weston incorporated as a village, as did the whole of the Town of Kronenwetter (albeit in two stages).
  2. You might not have noticed I also created templates for Stevens Point, Wisconsin (Template:Stevens Point, Wisconsin) and Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin (Template:Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin), as well as expanding Template:Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Template:Green Bay, Wisconsin and Template:Kenosha, Wisconsin.
  3. Check out Wikipedia:Changing_attribution_for_an_edit for your unsigned edits going back to last November.
  4. Quiddler, incidentally, sounds like a cool game...right up my alley. :-) I'll hafta check it out sometime, if I ever see it for sale.
    • From looking at this, I'd say you should be able to determine what edits you made, and redirect the anon userpage to User:Acjelen and the anon talkpage to this page. Tomer TALK
      • That's not my computer. That's my friend Mary's computer. I don't feel right redirecting that anon user to my profile. -Acjelen 05:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah. well, that's no fun. Hi Mary. :-d

Tomer TALK 04:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Stanley, Wisconsin[edit]

You might get a kick out of this...notice what I excised from the article at this diff: [1]. Tomer TALK 04:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Gomer of Ezekiel and Gomer of Genesis are the same thing, so I am going to re-merge them into Gomer (Bible).

List of people from Texas[edit]

Thank you for your kind comments. I just tweaked and cleaned it up a little and added more names. I started the Oklahoma list and fashioned it after Texas. I read your user page and just thought I'd let you know we have a few things in common. I'm half French-Canadian, 1/4 German and also a fellow Texan, not native but almost. :-) Thanks again! maltmomma 03:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


My pleasure. I don't know what it was all about either — he left the same long piece on a number of User and article Talk pages. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

List of people from Texas[edit]

Apologies; your reasoning is good, and I was in error. Should have checked the talk page. I'll remove my edit. Yours, Meelar (talk) 21:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Toaster oven[edit]

Thanks for your editing efforts on List of sexual slurs. However, please don't edit when you're hungry, ;). Cheers, -Willmcw 05:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Fantastic Four[edit]

I chose to rework your rework of my description of Ultimate Fantastic Four to clarify the fact that the Ultimate team is not merely "new stories," but rather a new team altogether. After all, the original FF's comic is still being published. --Joe Sewell 17:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I can understand the confusion, since the Ultimate Marvel "universe" seems to contain the same individuals as the "regular" Marvel universe. In fact, they're more or less counterparts or doppelgängers in an alternate universe. The Ultimate Marvel universe version of Thor is probably one of the best examples of the contrast. --Joe Sewell 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The law isn't as prescriptive as to say "everyone must have their father's surname", but it's certainly governed by the law to some extent. For instance, if a man and woman with children divorce and the woman is given sole custody of the children, she cannot change the children's surnames to her maiden name, as the courts will not let the children have their patronymic surname taken away for no good reason. And if a husband and wife who have not taken the same surname have children, the children automatically have the father's surname, and a court order would be required if the parents wished otherwise. Once people are adults, of course, they can take whatever surname they want. But in any case, using a title as a surname does not indicate that the person concerned actually thinks it is a surname. It is common practice amongst the British nobility in informal situations to use the title as a last name: "John Smith, 7th Viscount Somewhere" will often call himself "John Somewhere" amongst friends. Proteus (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

I would guess that amongst friends, he will simply be "John". Whereas, truly, in some semi-official situations, he will be "Somewhere" or "John Somewhere". Queen Vixtoria's dad signed himself as "Kent and Strathearn" (without first name, without any more surnames nor titles). 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

May I ask whether that is intended to render the British law? Or what? And, am I incorrect in assuming that the guys are now adults? 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

harry and william, Wales[edit]

Sadly, you have now omitted the information that at the university, Prince William used Wales in place of surname, and that Prince Harry in earlier school similarly used Wales. I request that you try to preserve information when making edits, rather than lose it from the article. 7 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)

The issue I try to say, is not the word surname, but William at the university and Harry in earlier school. 7 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

disambig links[edit]

In the Bright Eyes "instance", why not? I linked directly to the band's page; that's what people on that page would want. Policy seems to clearly say to link directly to what you mean, not to a disambig page... Fantusta 9 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)


Acjelen, I just want to know where we are getting with the American article, because it doesn't seem to be anywhere! To keep things from getting messy, can you please help me out: what would the article look like, ideally, to you? How should we define American? --ROY YOЯ 9 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Yes, the version you have looks more organized, and it has everything it needs from the original article. It's true that the important thing is that we give all of the information about the term, despite what some people what to leave out. If you put up that article, things should be fine - and if anyone has a problem with it because they want to ignore some of the facts, that's too bad! After that, I would be content to leave things be. Thanks. --ROY YOЯ 16:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ac-this is good to see, and in my opinion you're taking this article in the right direction. Again, I think your way of putting the article together is better, with a simple disambig, separate from the actual issue. Glad to see it, and thanks for keeping me up to date! --ROY YOЯ 16:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical Jesus[edit]

You voted on the above. Your comments suggest that you may not have compared the article Historical Jesus to the article New Testament view on Jesus' life. The Historical Jesus article explicitely states in it's opening paragraph that it "presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus, as based on the four canonical gospels", and therefore I would suggest that it constitutes a POV fork of New Testament view on Jesus' life. Could you possibly review your vote? ~~~~ 17:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Strength in Numbers albums[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the album infobox symbols.

If The Telluride Sessions is the only album by Strength in Numbers, do we really need Category:Strength In Numbers albums or should it just go directly to Category:Bluegrass albums?

I will probably be adding some bluegrass albums soon, but I want to fill in some of the important gaps in the musician articles first. Cmadler 13:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader[edit]

Thanks for your support Acjelen. It's good to see someone is being rational around here. Copperchair 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


Vanunu is NOT internationally known as John Crossman, nor is it his formal name. It is his baptismal name. Names given to adults in baptism are not usually formalized in law in non-Catholic countries, unless the person goes through the paperwork. As far as I know, Vanunu hasn't. Calling him by a name that nobody recognizes is totally ludicrous.

As for splitting the article, that may well be the way to go when the list gets long enough. As you pointed out, the top part is all red links. I intend to write those articles, which is why the links are there. For now, the list is too short to warrant division, IMO. David Cannon 22:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambig page style[edit]

Hey there, I saw your excellent recent edits on the america disambig page, and I had one comment. According to the MoS piping is discouraged. I know it may look cleaner, but I think the point is to show the difference in pages right down to the difference in titles. It makes it easier to find what your looking for if the links don't all just say America. Thanks for cleaning up the rest though, have you thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation? - Trevor macinnis 18:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Pern Dragons[edit]

Thanks, dude - I spent quite a while working on that the other night, and I wasn't really expecting any recognition for it.

Looking through the other Pern articles, you're right - almost all of them could use some work, and there's a bunch of little articles that really ought to be merged into the bigger ones. I might try and improve some of those in the future. Thanks again! Penelope D 23:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to discuss your revert of my changes to American. I feel that disambiguation pages exist to navigate readers to their desired article. I use Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) as the basis for the changes I make. What are your thoughts? --Commander Keane 14:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • In retrospect, the article is not too badly organised as it is. The page, I think you would agree, is now definately a disambiguaion page. However, even though english is my native language, when trying to decipher various meanings of a word, I never use "noun" or adjective". I can see the advantage of using these, as to remove any preduduce in the order of entries, but I find it confusing. The "See also" section is not really for free assoctiaion. I will make some minor changes, and perhaps you can adjust them for me. --Commander Keane 05:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

USAian (huh?)[edit]

I can see a plausible editoral case that "USAian" isn't necessary in describing the Miller test, since readers can click on the link to find out the USA-only jurisdiction (I don't agree, since I think indicating jurisdicational scope is worthwhile to mention in that sentence; I'll leave the edit though).

But what on earth could make the adjective "ridiculous" or "offensive"?! Are you one of those people with a strange antipathy towards towards the adjective? I've encountered some people who believe falsely that the neologism is recent of "hackerish" (it actually dates back about 150 years, though never in predominant use). Or do you think it self-evident to all the world that everyone knows the Miller test is a USA thing? I just can't figure out what the edit comment might rationally mean. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:35, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

ct pnhndl[edit]

thnks Gzuckier 02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"pipping" error[edit]

I assume you meant "piping". Thanks for that tho...I was kind of in a race to make sure I could beat BaronLarf with what I was doing! :-D Tomer TALK 10:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


I did that revert without giving much thought and ended up forgetting to fix what I intended to in the first place: there is no disambig article at present. Am I to assume you intend to create one? --Sn0wflake 04:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate[edit]

My FU. I apologize. I was tracking a vandal (which I don't do very often) and wasn't keep track of what were current pages, and what had already been reverted. BlankVerse 19:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bancroft prize[edit]

You're absolutely right. What I will probably do is add Arming America to the entries for 2001 when I get to that year, with a note stating that the prize was late revoked. Steve Casburn 00:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas proposed deletion[edit]

Please go here and express your opinion on whether Category:Handbook of Texas citations should be deleted. As a Wikipedian in Texas, your opinion on this topic is particularly valuable. 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

Vandalism at Edict of Nantes[edit]

The first paragraph was deleted and a juvenile graffito added 14:16, 2 October 2005, User:, an anonymous passer-by. In erasing the graffiti, the next editor (14:22, 2 October 2005, User:, another anonymous passer-by) did not revert the page, and the opening paragraph remained lost. Then, a "cleanup tag' was applied 04:49, 4 October 2005 by User:Andreww and a "Wikify tag" followed, 17:27, 4 October 2005, added by User:Acjelen. I have restored the original version, but some editorial care needs to be exercised before applying those tags, which have been so trashed by their mis-usage. --Wetman 05:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

Okara, Pakistan[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up, but shouldn't you have created a new Okara, Pakistan article instead of just deleting the relevant parts from the Okara article? (I might do it myself when I have some time.) – Wikipeditor 12:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt there wasn't enough good (that is encyclopedic) information there to actually create that article. -Acjelen 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Smith (surname)[edit]

The "forced" name changes are no urban legend, but rather a well documented historical fact - I'll see if I can find some references to support this after I get back from my "forced" break, but I recall studying it in back in my sociology days (name etymology was one of the passions of my major professor). BD2412 T 02:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

PM classical albums[edit]

I just added it. BGC 12:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote for adminship[edit]

I know you don't know me yet, but I'm a fellow Mac OS X user here at Wikipedia. Currently I am up for adminship atWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wackymacs, please put in your Support vote if you want!, Thanks for your interest. — Wackymacs 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Salome[edit]

Thanks! Btw, good work on Disciple whom Jesus loved; it's nice to see someone who can make a good compromise! The resulting article is very interesting indeed.   8^)   --Spudtater 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: How to write good[edit]

Responded to on my talk page. -- Kbh3rd 20:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure it's better that way?..... without my explanation it just seems like that's randomly in there and out of place. This is because people who don't know much about Jesus don't know that this happened just before Christ's death.


Hello Acjelen. I am not a new anonymous user, I have edited the Jesus article and other articles many 1000s of times. :) Secondly don't remove the Islam info from the intro. The intro is meant to summarize what is coming in the rest of the article. So you either move the repeated info of Christianity too or you leave both Islam and Christianity in the lead sentence. Both religions hold importance to Jesus and saying that the reference to Islam should be shortened to insignificance is biased. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that I was the first Wikipedian to call you "anonymous user" instead of "anonymous editor". I have not removed the Islam info from the intro. The intro is very long (a good five or six paragraphs) and Islam is treated very well, too good for some editors in the last couple of days. I suppose Islam should be mentioned in the first paragraph, but the paragraph on Islam later in the intro needs to stay. -Acjelen 04:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay hope you are done writing this time. So the paragraphs are fine then. Also, I think that irrelevant info about Christology is not necessary in the intro? Especially because it does not fit into the paragraph and can go later into the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how Christology doesn't belong in the intro to the Jesus article. Anyway, the point of that paragraph is to keep the debate about whether Jesus is God or not out of the "other gospel claims" article. -Acjelen 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? Christology does not fit into the paragraph at all and really isn't something that should be put into an intro. It can come later in the article such as in the Life and teachings section. My main concern with you was the removal and movement of Islam information, a religion in which he is also of major significance. Aside from that if you have small edits to make that do not move the paragraphs or remove Islam info that is fine with me. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Like I said before, I don't understand why you keep changing around the paragraphs and that is a main concern of mine. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I keep changing the paragraphs around because I've been editing the Jesus article for the last couple of days, though it has been one of the most stressful things I've done. It seems to me that one should finish a treatment of claims or arguments about Jesus in Christianity before treating Jesus in Islam. Since the intro is making Christological statements about Jesus, it might as well mention Christology. -Acjelen 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned the christology info in the intro of the section below since that section describes his life. Secondly the last paragraph of the intro shows how perspectives of Jesus vary in not only christianity but in other religions (such as Judaism) too. That is the point of the last paragraph. The second and third paragraph are filled with info about Jesus in christianity. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose I am reading those paragraphs in the introduction very differently than you are. -Acjelen 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I am happy with the current version. I left the sentence you moved to the third paragraph in my last edit. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)