User talk:Genarians

Welcome

Hello, Genarians, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Musdan77 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Vandalism Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tishma, you will be blocked from further editing. Faisal961 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My editing isn't disruptive. I rewrote the article and made it readable and succinct. The original article was nothing more than a fawning fan letter. Genarians (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the original article? Have you read my re-write? Do you honestly feel that the original article is superior? Is there someone to whom I can appeal your warning to block me from further editing and your calling my edits "disruptive"? Genarians (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent the following e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org. Hopefully, someone who is above you in the chain-of-command at Wikipedia can read my article and compare it to the original and see which one should be included on Wikipedia. If someone writes back and decides that the original article is the preferred one, than I will submit to their decision. "I apologize that I don't know exactly how Wikipedia works. I am respectfully requesting that someone please give me guidance. I came across a Wikipedia article on a Bangladeshi singer named Tishma which was nothing more than a rambling and fawning fan letter. It was full of redundancies and poor grammar. Someone named Faisal961 wrote to me and called my edits "disruptive" and compared them to vandalism and threatened to block me from further editing if I didn't stop. I asked Faisal961 if he/she read the original article and compared it to my rewrite and could honestly say that the original was superior. Is there anyone at Wikipedia who can arbitrate this dispute? I'd hate to be blocked from further edits solely for trying to improve an article. Please let me know what recourse I have in this matter. Thank you. Walter Breitzke User: Genarians" Genarians (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tishma. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Faisal961 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Deaths in 2015 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Wylie pedia 05:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Rip Taylor without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SummerPhD (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jean Badal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jean Badal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GILO A&E⇑ 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renown

I commend you for your removals (or anyway those I've looked at) of "renowned". (Next task: the squillion or so superfluous instances of "located"?) But do please add edit summaries. If your browser works like mine (Firefox/Iceweasel), you'll only have to type the edit summary once: subsequently typing just its first few letters will nudge the browser to suggest the whole. -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Step back from the brink

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tishma. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Do not allow yourself to be baited into violating WP:3RR; let things cool off for a day or two while a path forward is sought. Worldbruce (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For keeping your cool in the face of personal attacks by a flock of sockpuppets at Tishma. For the first time in the seven years since it was created there's a chance for a neutral, verifiable article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Genarians. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Mirigliani

I have proposed deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Genarians. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Genarians. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits marked minor

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same. You've made some really useful edits but it looks as if you are marking them all as minor. Tacyarg (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ages

No, it is not subjective to write "at the age of only xx" if someone is clearly very young for something. Please desist from deleting this. Also please write "at the age of xx" instead of the horribly colloquial "at age xx". Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is indeed subjective. The article states Jean Baptiste became captain of the first rank at the age of "only" 32. How do you know that 32 was a young age for someone to become captain? This person lived in the 1700s/1800s. What was the life expectancy then? Maybe 32 wasn't considered young (as it would be today). Whatever the truth, I don't think he was "clearly" too young to be named captain. I believe simply stating he was 32 is sufficient. The reader knows that Baptiste was 32 when he became captain. Period. But to write "only 32" is designed to make the reader aware that this was an unusual accomplishment. Again, how do we know that?

My question is at what age is adding the qualifier "only" not required? Is there a number? For instance, "at the age of only 32", "at the age of only 33", "at the age of only 34", and so on. When does becoming captain of the first rank NOT require placing "only" before the age? In other words, is it OK to write "at the age of only 39", but by 40 one can drop "only", presuming then that 40 is the proper age to obtain the rank of captain? Again, unless someone is an expert on this subject, I think it IS, indeed, subjective for a non-expert to write "at the age of only 32".

Also, can you please show me proof that "age xx" instead of "age of xx" is "horribly" colloquial? I don't see the need to add a preposition when one isn't necessary. I understand writing "at the age of 32", but I don't see why writing "at age 32" is wrong and/or colloquial. Genarians (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)genarians[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Slonimsky

He's certainly a composer, if you read his article properly. And, having read his article properly I can find no mention of "film scorer". So reverted. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your insightful comments. Based on what you wrote, I did go back and properly read Mr. Slonimsky's article. According to his article, he composed music for only four films, while the number of operatic pieces he composed far exceeds this number. I wonder why not simply state, therefore, that Mr. Slonimsky was a "Russian composer". To label Mr. Slonimsky as a "soundtrack composer" - which is what his "Deaths in 2020" listing originally stated - suggests that he only composed music for films, which he didn't (again, if one reads his article properly). Thanks. Genarians (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hubbard edit

I have reverted your addition of a date of birth to Elizabeth Hubbard. In addition to Wikipedia's basic principle of citing sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources), a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person (WP:BLPPRIVACY). Feel free to add a date of birth when it is accompanied by a citation to a reliable, published source. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of written English

Hi @Genarians:, please stop changing the wording in the opening lines of BLPs from "American former actress" to "former American actress". This may be how it is sometimes informally said when people are speaking, but in written English it is not correct – hence why nobody is correcting this line, except you. When it is written in a formal context, "former American actress" incorrectly suggests that they are a former American as well as a former actress. I've reverted hundreds of your edits in the past where you've done this, and still you persist. Please stop. Thank you Jkaharper (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you and will continue to do what I think is proper. To imply that I don't use proper English is a very offensive thing to accuse me of. I'm not saying that someone is an actress who is a "former American", but someone who is an American actress who is no longer working. You have a lot of nerve. Genarians (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not write to me again. Genarians (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Genarians:, I think you have misjudged my tone. However, I do not think it is appropriate how you continue to revert changes on this basis, even after other users correct them after you. That's edit warring and is seriously frowned upon on here. It's well within my right to leave a message on your talk page if I think there are ways that we can improve Wikipedia together. Please be civil. Thanks again. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's hard to misjudge your tone when you title your response "Proper use of written English". It can only mean one thing: That you think you know "proper" English and others (like me) don't.

Second, please do not accuse me of "warring". When I realized you had changed my edit on Rachel Robertson, I left it alone. I've learned from past experience that once someone like you feels that he/she is right, there's no point in arguing. I had no clue you and other users had been correcting my changes. How would I know that? Even though I continue to feel that you're all "misguided" ("American former actress" sounds totally stilted), I know better than to fight back. To quote my departed grandmother, "Consider the source."

Third, why would you feel compelled to tell me to be civil? There was nothing in my response to your message that would suggest any bit of "un-civility". (And believe me, that showed tremendous self-restraint on my part.)

I have listed five examples below of articles from The New York Times where they used "former American" (or the like) instead of "American former". If given a choice between a world-renowned publication like The New York Times and self-righteous individuals like yourself, I'll go with the world-renowned publication every time. (Now THAT'S being uncivil!)

The New York Times, in an article dated October 12, 2018, wrote, "He said the royal obsession is strong, thanks to the TV series 'The Crown,' and with the former American actress [not American former actress], Meghan Markle, joining England’s royal family." (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/nyregion/heres-your-chance-to-try-on-marie-antoinettes-jewels.html)
The New York Times, in an article dated March 7, 2020, wrote, "Erik Prince, the security contractor with close ties to the Trump administration, has in recent years helped recruit former American and British spies [not American and British former spies] for secretive intelligence-gathering operations that included infiltrating Democratic congressional campaigns, labor organizations and other groups considered hostile to the Trump agenda, according to interviews and documents. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/us/politics/erik-prince-project-veritas.html)
The New York Times, in an article dated December 21, 2018, wrote, "“Who will persuade Trump not to withdraw from NATO?” Daniel B. Shapiro, the former American ambassador to Israel [not American former ambassador], asked in a tweet on Friday as the implications of the Mattis resignation sunk in.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/us/politics/trump-mattis-american-first-foreign-policy.html)
The New York Times, in an article dated August 31, 2019, wrote, "Leslie H. Gelb, an iconoclastic former American diplomat [not American former diplomat], journalist and prodigious commentator on world affairs, died on Saturday at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in Manhattan." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/us/leslie-gelb-dead.html)
The New York Times, in an article dated June 25, 2022, wrote, "The Ukrainian military’s most acute training problem right now is that it is losing its most battle-hardened and well-trained forces, according to former American officials [note American former officials] who have worked with the Ukrainians." (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html) Genarians (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are ten examples from The Washington Post" of "former British" rather than "British former". I may not - as you put it - know "proper use of written English" - but apparently neither does The New York Times nor The Washington Post. I'm in good company!

Please note that the capitalizations below are mine.

Poland confirms arrest of Polish scientist in Iran

https://www.washingtonpost.com › world › 2022/07/07

Jul 7, 2022

“...detained in Iran after Iranian media reports claimed a number of...also claimed that the FORMER BRITISH DEPUTY AMBASSADOR to Iran...”

FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2017/02/28

Feb 28, 2017

“The FORMER BRITISH SPY who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of...The Washington Post was not able to determine how much the FBI...”

The fake news that haunted George Washington

https://www.washingtonpost.com › news › 2017/04/10

Apr 10, 2017

“...him for being too accommodating to the FORMER BRITISH OVERLORDS...He was The Washington Post's business editor for more than seven...”

Britain, other US allies push back on Biden's Aug. 31 deadline

https://www.washingtonpost.com › world › 2021/08/23

Aug 23, 2021

“Tony Blair, the FORMER BRITISH LEADER who had previously praised Biden and presided over..."

British wave washes over US media market

https://www.washingtonpost.com › style › 2013/05/27

May 27, 2013

“Then there's Piers Morgan, the FORMER BRITISH TABLOID JOURNALIST who...”

Former French president Sarkozy, guilty of illegal campaign...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › europe › 2021/09/30

Sep 30, 2021

“Sarkozy's lawyer says the FORMER FRENCH PRESIDENT will appeal conviction...”

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French president, dies at 94

https://www.washingtonpost.com › local › 2020/12/02

Dec 2, 2020

“Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the FORMER FRENCH PRESIDENT who worked for three...”

Le Pen calls for 'strategic rapprochement between NATO and…

https://www.washingtonpost.com › world › 2022/04/14

Apr 14, 2022

“... are modeled on a precedent created by the FORMER FRENCH GENERAL AND PRESIDENT…”

Michael Dirda reviews 'The Great Nadar' by Adam Begley

https://www.washingtonpost.com › books › 2017/07/19

Jul 21, 2017

“These included the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, the FORMER FRENCH PRIME MINISTER...”

Stars Bardot, Marceau lead fight to amend French food bill

https://www.washingtonpost.com › business › 2018/05/21

May 21, 2018

“The Bardot Foundation released a video in which the FORMER FRENCH FILM STAR…” Genarians (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten more from The New York Times. Please let me know if you'd like me to contact The New York Times and/or The Washington Post and inform them that "this may be how it is sometimes informally said when people are speaking, but in written English it is not correct". I'm guessing they'd appreciate knowing that.

Sweden's Ex-Ambassador to China Is Cleared of Wrongdoing

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Europe

Dec 15, 2020

“The FORMER SWEDISH AMBASSADOR to China, Anna Lindstedt…”

Former Italian Prime Minister Says He's Suing Trump Aide for…

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Europe

Oct 4, 2019

“The FORMER ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER Matteo Renzi, center, said on Friday that he was suing George Papadopoulos, a onetime Trump campaign...”

Berlusconi Is Sentenced to Seven Years in Sex Case, but Can

...https://www.nytimes.com › World › Europe

Jun 24, 2013

“Silvio Berlusconi, the FORMER ITALIAN LEADER, was expected to appeal a court ruling that he paid for sex with a minor…”

For Italians in Brooklyn, Voices on Streets Have Changed

https://www.nytimes.com › 2009/01/07 › nyregion

Jan 6, 2009

“Buonincondro, the FORMER ITALIAN SOLDIER, said through a translator that he increasingly had fewer people to talk to…”

The Tour de France to Start in Denmark in 2021

https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/06/13 › travel › tour-de-...

Jun 13, 2019

“Roskilde, the FORMER DANISH CAPITAL, 22 miles (35 kilometers), from Copenhagen, is the starting point of the Tour's second stage…”

Greek Crisis, the Book. Or Actually Several of Them

https://www.nytimes.com › Business › DealBook

Aug 11, 2016

“The FORMER GREEK FINANCE MINISTER Yanis Varoufakis in 2015…”

Creditors Loom Over Elections in Greece

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Europe

Sep 16, 2015

Alexis Tsipras, the FORMER GREEK PRIME MINISTER and leader of the Syriza party, speaking during a televised debate between the main party...”

Juan Carlos, Former King, Returns to Spain

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Europe

May 19, 2022

Juan Carlos, the FORMER SPANISH MONARCH, traveled to Spain on Thursday for the first time since he left his country almost two years ago...”

First Canada Tried to Charm Trump. Now It's Fighting Back.

https://www.nytimes.com › 2018/06/09 › magazine › justi...

Jun 9, 2018

“Trudeau's first phone call with Trump went surprisingly well, with the president-elect recalling how he met the FORMER CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER…”

Margaret Trudeau's Comeback - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com › 2015/11/08 › fashion › marga...

Nov 8, 2015

“Margaret Trudeau, the wife of the FORMER CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER Pierre Trudeau, presides over a christening ceremony at Sumitomo shipyard...” Genarians (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. Media often use informal language as it is more commonly spoken as it resonates with more people. E.g. "passed away" instead of "died", which is a euphemism that we wouldn't use here. It's use in the Washington Post, NY Times etc. doesn't make it formal language. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!! An encyclopaedia? Encyclopaedia Britannica is an encyclopedia. It's written by scholars and experts. Wikipedia is written by any Tom, Dick, or Harry with access to a computer. You may be fooling yourself by thinking Wikipedia is superior to major encyclopedias and world-famous newspapers, but I've been reading Wikipedia articles for many, many years, and I assure you you're not fooling me. If you truly believe an average article in Wikipedia is superior to an article from respected news sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post, that's just rather sad.

And really? Media such as the Times and the Post often use informal language? Do they? Can you site your source(s)? And can you back up your claim that they use anything less than proper, standard English to appeal to the "masses"? I know The New York Times and The Washington Post have won numerous media awards (i.e., the Pulitzer Prize) throughout the decades. Has Wikipedia?

And speaking of backing up claims, please send me the following, if possible:

1) A link to an article stating that "passed away" is an unacceptable euphemism for "died".

2) A link to an article stating that "former American actress" is not standard English, but "American former actress" is. I'm very interested in reading about that.

3) A tally of exactly how many of my edits you've had to revert. You state above that you've "reverted hundreds of your edits in the past where you've done this, and still you persist." [SIGH] Has it really been hundreds? If so, that makes me sound like I'm rather ignorant and hard-headed. And I don't believe I am. An accurate number would be helpful.

Here's my thought (and I could be wrong). You're British. And as such, you believe that British English is superior to American English. If so, I question why you are allowed to be an editor (or whatever position you hold at Wikipedia; I apologize that I don't know the proper term). I think editors should be flexible and accept the differences between British and American English. For instance, even though Americans would write a date as "July 18, 2022", when I see an article that uses "18 July 2022", I don't feel the need to change it.

But whether you're British, American, Canadian, or from the South Pole, "Proper use of written English" (the phrase you initially used to take me to task) is unkind, offensive, and inappropriate (as was your whole tone). Earlier today, I told you not to write to me again. I apologize. What I should have written was, "Do not write to me again until you can show respect for individuals who are attempting to improve Wikipedia and are able to make me aware of issues in a non-judgmental, non-Godlike tone." Genarians (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]