Welcome!
Hello, RJN/Archive 1, 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:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ·
Katefan0
(scribble)/
mrp
00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
You wouldn't happen to be aquainted with the contributor User:UH Collegian, would you? - JCarriker 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Edit summary for Houston -- "Removed advertisement and boosterism. Also, this section is supposed to be a summary, not in detail depicting a user's POV..." AGREED! - obviously a personal agenda Postoak 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hello and thank you so much for your help with the Dallas, Texas article. I still have one major problem with the page.. and that is the districts/communities section. There are separate subpages for each neighborhood/district/area in the city.. all listed on the Dallas neighborhood template that you moved to the bottom of the page. All those descriptions of the neighborhoods i think should be deleted and replaced with some more generalized text and a small listing (seven) of the core Dallas areas (labeled districts): Downtown Dallas, East Dallas, North Dallas, Oak Cliff, South Dallas, Uptown, and West Dallas. What do you think..? drumguy8800 - speak? 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yeah I used the layout of the Houston template for the Dallas ones. One thing you might consider doing is placing "text-align: center;" in the style declaration at the top of both the neighborhood and metropolitan ones.. when people have their text auto-justified (per their preferences), the title and items on the left are pushed up against the left-side of the template. This happened to mine until I inserted that style declaration.. you can check out the Template:Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex or Template:Dallas to see the differences in coding.. If you haven't edited the community section on the Dallas page, I'll go ahead and do that. drumguy8800 - speak? 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As it is worded it wwould be correct. Houston is the largest economic area along the U.S. Gulf coast, and would be if you included the Mexican Gulf coast as well, if however it were rephrased to say the largest economic area in a Gulf state then that phrase would be inaccurate and the title would go to DFW. Also, would you mind updating your user information at WikiProject US regions also chcek out its new map series. -Thanks. - JCarriker 04:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like you've done some work lately on Sugar Land, Texas. The article generally suffers from a lack of source citations. Any chance you might be able to add some?
On a related note, I see that you've written that Sugar Land is earthquake free and contrasted it with Houston. Do the faults in Houston actually produce quakes?
Thanks for your work on this one! Gwimpey 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Just curious: What were you planning on doing to the Long Beach, California article? Blank Verse 11:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'll get around to it in a few days. - JCarriker 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Why did you change the lead section in New Radicals from "The New Radicals were" to "The New Radicals was"? Grammatically, shouldn't it be either "The New Radicals were" or "New Radicals was" (without "the")? (See also The Beatles, The Supremes, Sex Pistols...) -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't know why you keep assuming I prefer BE. Actually, I'm studying AE. I'm not trying to force some other other variation onto you here, I want to make sure the article is correct by AE standard. Please don't think of this as a personal attack. According to Singular and plural for nouns the correct way in both BE and AE is "is/was" in cases with plural proper nouns. They even give "The Beatles are a well-known band." as an example that's supposedly correct in both variations.
And about your example that "New York Yankees" can be replaced with "the team" (which I totally agree is singular): It can also be replaced with "40 baseball players", which is plural, right? -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The thing is, there's an American-British usage difference going on here, which you can read about at American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. In British English it's correct to say not only " New Radicals are" but also " Aerosmith are". Likewise "The audience are listening" and even "My bank are just awful!". " Liverpool is" and " England is" refer to the places, but " Liverpool are" and " England are" refer to soccer teams. -- Angr ( t· c) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
RJN, you are changing "are" to "is" in many articles about bands and sports teams with plural names. I'm not sure this usage is correct. Your edit summary said "Copyedit: proper use of collective nouns in American English. See college level writting handbook for proper use of collective nouns and other things". Could you please name the college writing handbook which says you should use the singular "is" with plural collective nouns? I can't imagine that it's correct to say "The White Stripes is..." in either American or British English. According to American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns, "The White Stripes are" is correct in both American or British English. Thanks. Rhobite 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
RJN, I reverted your edits to the articles where you changed "are" to "is" (or "is" to "are") and "were" to "was" (or "was" to "were") because your kind of usage doesn't seem correct like these examples: " blink-182 are", " Meat Puppets was", " Green Day are", " Smashing Pumpkins was", " Sublime were" etc., you see that's not correct American or British English at all. That sounds like sloppy english. Alex 101 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I was wondering where you were off to. Glad to see you back and editing! Maltmomma (chat) 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Welcome!
Hello, RJN/Archive 1, 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:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ·
Katefan0
(scribble)/
mrp
00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
You wouldn't happen to be aquainted with the contributor User:UH Collegian, would you? - JCarriker 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Edit summary for Houston -- "Removed advertisement and boosterism. Also, this section is supposed to be a summary, not in detail depicting a user's POV..." AGREED! - obviously a personal agenda Postoak 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hello and thank you so much for your help with the Dallas, Texas article. I still have one major problem with the page.. and that is the districts/communities section. There are separate subpages for each neighborhood/district/area in the city.. all listed on the Dallas neighborhood template that you moved to the bottom of the page. All those descriptions of the neighborhoods i think should be deleted and replaced with some more generalized text and a small listing (seven) of the core Dallas areas (labeled districts): Downtown Dallas, East Dallas, North Dallas, Oak Cliff, South Dallas, Uptown, and West Dallas. What do you think..? drumguy8800 - speak? 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yeah I used the layout of the Houston template for the Dallas ones. One thing you might consider doing is placing "text-align: center;" in the style declaration at the top of both the neighborhood and metropolitan ones.. when people have their text auto-justified (per their preferences), the title and items on the left are pushed up against the left-side of the template. This happened to mine until I inserted that style declaration.. you can check out the Template:Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex or Template:Dallas to see the differences in coding.. If you haven't edited the community section on the Dallas page, I'll go ahead and do that. drumguy8800 - speak? 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As it is worded it wwould be correct. Houston is the largest economic area along the U.S. Gulf coast, and would be if you included the Mexican Gulf coast as well, if however it were rephrased to say the largest economic area in a Gulf state then that phrase would be inaccurate and the title would go to DFW. Also, would you mind updating your user information at WikiProject US regions also chcek out its new map series. -Thanks. - JCarriker 04:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like you've done some work lately on Sugar Land, Texas. The article generally suffers from a lack of source citations. Any chance you might be able to add some?
On a related note, I see that you've written that Sugar Land is earthquake free and contrasted it with Houston. Do the faults in Houston actually produce quakes?
Thanks for your work on this one! Gwimpey 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Just curious: What were you planning on doing to the Long Beach, California article? Blank Verse 11:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'll get around to it in a few days. - JCarriker 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Why did you change the lead section in New Radicals from "The New Radicals were" to "The New Radicals was"? Grammatically, shouldn't it be either "The New Radicals were" or "New Radicals was" (without "the")? (See also The Beatles, The Supremes, Sex Pistols...) -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't know why you keep assuming I prefer BE. Actually, I'm studying AE. I'm not trying to force some other other variation onto you here, I want to make sure the article is correct by AE standard. Please don't think of this as a personal attack. According to Singular and plural for nouns the correct way in both BE and AE is "is/was" in cases with plural proper nouns. They even give "The Beatles are a well-known band." as an example that's supposedly correct in both variations.
And about your example that "New York Yankees" can be replaced with "the team" (which I totally agree is singular): It can also be replaced with "40 baseball players", which is plural, right? -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The thing is, there's an American-British usage difference going on here, which you can read about at American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. In British English it's correct to say not only " New Radicals are" but also " Aerosmith are". Likewise "The audience are listening" and even "My bank are just awful!". " Liverpool is" and " England is" refer to the places, but " Liverpool are" and " England are" refer to soccer teams. -- Angr ( t· c) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
RJN, you are changing "are" to "is" in many articles about bands and sports teams with plural names. I'm not sure this usage is correct. Your edit summary said "Copyedit: proper use of collective nouns in American English. See college level writting handbook for proper use of collective nouns and other things". Could you please name the college writing handbook which says you should use the singular "is" with plural collective nouns? I can't imagine that it's correct to say "The White Stripes is..." in either American or British English. According to American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns, "The White Stripes are" is correct in both American or British English. Thanks. Rhobite 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
RJN, I reverted your edits to the articles where you changed "are" to "is" (or "is" to "are") and "were" to "was" (or "was" to "were") because your kind of usage doesn't seem correct like these examples: " blink-182 are", " Meat Puppets was", " Green Day are", " Smashing Pumpkins was", " Sublime were" etc., you see that's not correct American or British English at all. That sounds like sloppy english. Alex 101 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I was wondering where you were off to. Glad to see you back and editing! Maltmomma (chat) 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply