User talk:GinAndChronically

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, GinAndChronically! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the thanks ...

... I love your username! Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary at Samuel Campbell

You wrote "(there is some thing seriously wrong with the place logic here. how can a place be in one county which is now another and then since June 2, 1853 in Columbus, Chenango County, New York FYI: inside the brackets in the introduction is the lifespan of the subject of the bio. His birthplace may have been at the time of his birth ("then" = "at the time of the given date") in one county, and after the creation of new counties by splitting old counties, may "now" = "in the present" lie in a differently named county, although the place is still at the same place on Earth. The next date is the death date and then there may have been included in the brackets the death place which may lie in a totally different place, since not all people die in the place where they were born. I hope this clarifies things to a certain extent. If you have any further question, please ask me. Kraxler (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had made that redundant before signing off. The brevity of the use of "then" without sequence can cause some confusion especially when multiple punctuations are used in such a short sequence. When it comes to birth and death info, especially when legal identifications have changed and are noted a "- 'date' " is not necessarily recognizable as a death date and instead can be confused with some way of noting when some legal action had taken place. Use of "then" without a sequence modifier can be confusing as it is not necessarily known if then means in actuality "back then" or the "then" that means following. But I can see why it seems to be WP policy because when those with influence stick to something just might not be willing to acknowledge that something is otherwise especially with excessive emersion. Then can be in the mind of the writer but not necessary expressed without possible confusion.GinAndChronically (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Manual of Style, to get to know about the general layout of articles. I also suggest you consult an English teacher when in doubt about the meaning of English words, especially when syntax is important to the meaning. Kraxler (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, and nothing personal, but then what purpose would that serve for those that consider themselves with a better skills set to improve article text.GinAndChronically (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can parse your grammar correctly, reading the Manual of Style would serve the purpose to know that the brackets after the name of a subject of a bio do never contain any "way of noting when some legal action had taken place" but just the life span and, in some cases the birth and death places) and also to identify what is what in an article in general. To consult an English teacher would serve the purpose to understand the meaning of the words and how to use them. Both are instrumental when it comes for you (one "with a better skills") to improve article text. Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that what is in every WP article is according to style when in actuality is never set in an evolving environment with a multitude of participants. And of course there are those instances where WP has guidelines, not absolutes that seem to be at the mercy of someone that has more influence in the composition activity.GinAndChronically (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Marmon Silko

Thanks for the edit, but Ms. Silko is not dead yet. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The someone should review the following sentence along with others for better clarification: "The work was edited by Wright's wife, Ann Wright, and released posthumously in March 1980."GinAndChronically (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip -- it was Wright who died in 1980. I've clarified that. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at the judge's page

Hi GinAndChronically, In appreciation for your good edit on the Sotomayor page. During the last week, I have been adding the material from 3 new books on the Roberts court there and am almost done. The Sonia Sotomayor article could probably use a good top-to-bottom read through and touch-ups, after the two or three dozen edits which I have made there during this past week. Possibly you could give it a once over when/if time allows, and only if this field is of interest to you. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the good parts of this are long and the boring short. T h a n k y o u f o r t h e c o m m e n t s a n d n o t i c e . When it appears by the history that much of your additions have been completed I will make a look over to see how is the flow. Nuance is everything and if you can get what they say and have done to others then you have done what is needed. An expert can be so engrossed in the "language" that they cannot relate to the explanation needs of the layperson. That is a problem of the scientific articles. So let's see what happens. It will work despite reactionary comments made by those that would rather revert, say that something has been vandalism, than find something useful with good faith edits.GinAndChronically (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your smoothing out some of the narrative at Sonia Sotomayor look nice. Possibly you could continue when/if time allows. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always tell people to just get it down on paper then you can see what is repetitive, puff and that which you never thought you could live with. I'll take a bit at a time since more will inevitably be added in time.GinAndChronically (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LP--SHAME ON YOU FOR SUCH VANDALISM!!!!!!!!!GinAndChronically (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC) LP==Just as I thought, a typical WP bunch of "us" against "them" that are unwilling to feign when someone is mocking them or they are so wrapped unto themselves that they would fall over if they stood still. I've read this type of reaction a few times before and WP is just too rampant with this type that look at WP as their source of validation and from out of the woodwork they come to support their informal network. Good luck. They do not like to be called wrong with what they conclude, express themselves or how they bunker each other as if in an elementary school teacher's lounge. sock puppetry will soon emerge. I see the pattern. Well, I have Gotti get some sleep; client's breakfast.GinAndChronically (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corners

While I greatly appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikipedia, you have made several types of problematic edits over the last few days; please reconsider what you are doing with them. Edits like this are confusing to readers who have no idea what you mean. You could add  instead; that inserts a note which is hidden to readers but can be seen in the edit window. If you are insistent on changing corner to intersection (which in many cases is correct), then it is your responsibility to take thirty seconds to determine whether the article subject is on a certain corner or is the intersection. You should not make other editors clean up after you. Quality is more important than quantity on Wikipedia. "Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."

For someone wishes to improve grammar, you're making a number of errors yourself that you should be aware of. Here you left the second part of the first sentence with broken syntax. This edit is also in error; the original wording (even if a colloquialism) is superior to the stilted wording you added. National dialects are preferred per Wikipedia policy; the construction you used would not usually be spoken by a speaker of American English. "The uppermost northeast section" makes it sound like there is more than one northeast section of Indiana; "the northeast corner" establishes unambiguously that the county is at the northeastern limit of the state.

Please be more careful with your edits. Thank you, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted your edits per what Pi wrote above, as there is no reason to specify how many corners there are in a state if there is only just one. If anything, please consult with other editors on Wikipedia before you go in and write "ewns corner" all over the place, as there is no reason to add personal opinion on the pages. There are thousands of articles about corners on Wikipedia, and adding that term onto them will only serve to confuse the casual reader. The fact that many of these articles have also survived so many years without specifying what corner also means that there is consensus not to add those into the articles, as we do not need to be overly specific on facts here as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one with the idea about consensus is the rule. So then with your logic typos should because they have existed for some time should stand as is? And in those instances where new information has come to light that any statement with that new understanding should remain the same because if "consensus." Sorry to say but you are wring otherwise WP articles would not be open to editing. Not to be confrontational but you'll have to champion your cause with someone else on that reasoning. And to what do you refer when a state or country boundary is obtuse or acute or circular? Is that a corner as well or should everyone else bow to that interpretation?GinAndChronically (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that consensus is the rule, but deliberately introducing information which serves to confuse the reader does nothing to improve the page. Please cease editing in this way, as we will continue to revert you because what you are doing is blatantly disruptive. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now that you have been shown that consensus is an invalid justification support a position you reverse yourself. You really must think out just what you present as a justification rather than titter totter atop a brick wall. That was fine when playing as children but I assume you are older now. I disagree with you on the idea that the actions have not increased the value of making certain just what is being conveyed by an article's expression is disruptive. Just as scientific information must be in order to be testable so does the use of grammar etc especially when it comes to being an undisputable source of information. The fact remains that two intersecting streets have four corners so to say that something is at the corner of X and Y streets is inaccurate since two intersecting streets have four corners. Plain and simple and totally reasonably logical and in all likelihood will never change. To insist otherwise flies in the face of WP policies and guidelines. To insist otherwise is plain and simple inaccurate. Also, if it is to be insisted that because of the subject of the article dictates just how that article is to be expressed then in those articles in which it is a location being discussed that the words "location" or "located" are redundant and should be avoided. You are championing in the dace of WP policies and guidelines that the use of ambiguous expressions are suitable to the long term aspirations of WP. Now, if it is the intent of WP to stand as a long-lasting source of information then just what purpose does the continued insistence on ambiguous words and terms aid in the usefulness of WP articles if at some point those who know of a location or the information of such a location no longer exists. Does it serve the reader to be directed to a location that is not specified or has changed? It does not. So the unilateral reverting of the changes without regard ats to what improves an article just goes to show that there is an entitlement of some people in the WP environment that feel what they judge as to what is acceptable is what will persist. Again, that does not serve WP. Do I expect for you to change? Not as long as you hold this attitude. But the fact remains ambiguous words and terms have no use in WP articles. Plain and simple. No need to respond but I am CERTAIN that you will because just as Whoopie Goldberg says, there are boneheads in the world.GinAndChronically (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The fact remains that two intersecting streets have four corners" - That's not true. Please consult a math teacher about geometry, I'm sure you won't believe me when I say that a two-street intersection may have 5 or 6 or more corners, depending on the layout of the streets. In the case of Packard's Corner, the railway stop seems to consist of two platforms located on the median near the middle of the intersection, on different sides, one track leading one way, the other leading the other way. In that context it is correct to say that the stop is located on/at the corner of X and Y streets. Period. Once the WP reader gets to the intersection he will see which actual corner it is, and for people not carrying a compass the specification of cardinal points makes absolutely no difference. Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you really are begging the issue. I seriously doubt that within the context of WP that designated turning lanes separated by a island would be considered a "corner".

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Odd behavior by GinAndChronically. Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi GinAndChronically: What's going on? Why are you using the same edit summary, "ambiguous colloquialism", for edits that do not change phrasing, but rather make other small changes? It's misleading, and also I wonder why you bothered to edit American Airlines Flight 191 at all - all I see you having done there is remove extra spaces between sentences - and why you didn't fix more at Athena (comic) than one among the myriad misspellings. I see you are still at it with the same edit summary - why? Please start using more appropriate edit summaries, whatever your motivation in making these particular edits. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that I was using an inaccurate edit summary but thank you for bringing that up. I was unaware that there are standards that are absolute as to how one must go about editing. Could you point the exact explanations within WP policies and guidelines? I would advise that in future some questions might be answered if a review was to be made of someone's contribution page to see what has happened before and after a particular change. In this manner you would find that spellings have been sought out through universal searches rather than a selection of an article for editing. The reason for this is that many of these spellings have existed for some time and have managed to pass other readers without change. Is there to be found fault with this strategy? Especially when these spellings seem to be so elusive? Also, when a search hits list are reviewed, it is nit necessarily a spelling issue that has brought about its inclusion but that the string search upon is present. When there are many hits on the list and I automatically go into edit I am there already and have found no problem with the string but find something else so make an edit just for that. Is there fault to be found with that action? Again, if there is a WP policy or guideline about that then by all means point it out directly. You may not find it your editing style but it is mine with these particular instances. When it comes particularly to the comic related articles these tend to have the participation of those that english is a second language and not being a subject I am familiar I may not go beyond what was my search hit query to change should there be some type of spelling that just might be pertinent to that comic subject or publication. So someone more familiar with that comic should review for spelling/content. And you do have to admit that by my editing style it was drawn to the attention of someone that had far more interest in that article than I. Job done. Maybe not according to your logic but the world works in so many different ways.GinAndChronically (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the wiki way, and I have also searched for a common misspelling and proceeded to fix the instances I found; somewhere there is even a list of such common mispellings for the use of "wikiGnomes" who periodically check one of the items :-) However, I find it hard to believe you missed all the other misspellings at the comic article, when as you say you often see something else. There is in fact a guideline recommending against just correcting spacing, but it's not strictly policy so I won't bother tracking it down. The edit summary thing is much more concerning. Misspelling "individual" is not a colloquialism (in addition to not being an ambiguity). It is better to have edit summaries than not, but they should not be misleading. Please, when you fix spelling, say so; when you wind up doing something other than what you intended, try to remember not to use the same edit summary. If you don't want to craft specific edit summaries, I recommend "ce" or the full word "copy-edit" for all things of this kind - spelling, word choice, spaces, mark-up errors, verb agreement errors ... Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point seems to have been missed. It is presumed that when a searched string gets hits that the entire article is reviewed; I ordinarily do not do that as in the past I have been chastised for doing so and then now am being chastised for not doing so. If the manner with which I have been editing typos is contrary to WP policy and guidelines then point that out directly otherwise there should not be any thing with which to find official objection. If during an editing activity that the edit of a typo really does not do any thing to clarify the statement then I look at the entire sentence; and work as the conditions warrant to the entire article otherwise I keep to the single string. Again, if that strategy is contrary to WP policy and guidelines then point it out directly. One of the usual practices I have is that with particular subjects I do not have enough understanding that I leave any extensive editing to those that do otherwise there is as has been in the past have been statements of chastisement for doing so.

As for the colloquialism, that has been sufficiently described previously, If there is objection to that explanation then I have no further comment as I cannot change a continued perception that is contrary to any statement that has been made. This conversation should end.GinAndChronically (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "ambiguous colloquialism" in this edit? You're just confusing people at this point. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me refer to my introductory comment of message time stamped 19:12, 27 July 2014 which should be explanation enough. If found otherwise then I have no further comment to make in order to change a perception especially when questions have previously been raised and answered. Any ways, the optimistic approach to this would be to look at the action the result was in an article being tweaked; could it be what was proposed brought forth a different understanding of what existed previous to the edit? So, no time lost; no effort gone unrewarded.GinAndChronically (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regard that comment; I've occasionally had an incorrect comment for that reason, but only when using a "bot", so that the "edit summary" field is not on the same screen as the actual correction. If you are not a bot, that is not a valid reason for having an incorrect edit summary. In fact, on that particular edit, you had no change other than non-displayed spacing, so the edit is also a violation of a guideline which I cannot find at the moment, with the generally meaning of "do not make changes which have no effect on Wikipedia." That being said, some of your other edits show a clear violation of WP:CIR, and, as you apparently do not understand why, a block would be in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Help:Dummy edit: "A dummy edit is a change in wikitext that has no effect on the rendered page, the purpose of which is to save a useful edit summary." That is clearly not what is going on here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kinu ^t/_c 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]