All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501 - - (Generated (using "subst:") from 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) revision of user-Jerzy-talk generating template User:Jerzy/Fresh Talk Page, based on 3 January 2009 revision of User talk:Jerzy plus dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases, minor typo fixes, and a new link.)

The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:

1. You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
2. Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
3. Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
4. As the last line, type

   --~~~~

5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
7. Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading

[edit]

1. Click on that "[edit]" link.
2. Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
3. Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
4. As the new last line, type

   --~~~~

5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
7. In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
8. Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

The remaining material consists of

• A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
• Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved

  (These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)

• A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
• A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

• Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
• The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
• The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.^[1]
• The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).^[1]
• The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.^[1]
  • Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
    I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
• The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
• The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
• The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
• The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
• The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
• As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
  • Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
  • Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.

    If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.
    

Notes re history irregularities.

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

• User talk:Jerzy/Archive Index

Note that the Mixed-topic Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

• TRAC Programming language (6.7 kB, 2004 Nov 8)
• Carleton College (9 kB, 2004 Nov 6)
• Wikipedia Categories (9 kB, 2004 Nov 4)
• Turkey (often re Armenians) (19 kB, '04 Jul - Oct)
• Jerzy as Administrator (16 kB, '04 Sep- Oct)
• Dialogue with Adam Carr (14 kB, 2004 Jul 16)
• List of people by name (14 kB, '03 Dec - '04 Mar)

Note that the Topical Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

(If the page gets large, it's easier to scroll back up into the ToC from here than to scroll down thru it from its top.)

"Dig we must."

If this section's heading is not struck thru, it indicates that any discussions that i consider still active have been temporarily exiled to an archive page. Please be patient; they will reappear here.
--Jerzy•t 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former Titles of the Section that This Section Concerns:

Talk page work

Talk page work > American warning

re WT:MOSDAB
I posted a response and made some tweaks to the MOS to try to address your larger concern. Your particular concern about Michael Fisher (disambiguation) is probably not best dealt with in the MOS as it would be too much detail to spell out - we're trying to issue a style guideline not codify the tax code where every little word probably matters to someone. So, my common sense approach is order by alpha first name (those with middle names after those without, and middle names alpha). Mike after Michael (alpha) and Fred before Frederick (alpha), not mixed amongst one another (ditto McFoos after MacFoos), when all else fails alpha by profession or numerically by year of birth if either is parenthetically in the title. So the current page would pass muster with me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with the move and changes made; however, shouldn't there have been a comment and discussion period as this probably isn't a non-controversial move. speednat (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is non-controversial. A Dab is justified, but it may not include the portions of Yellow-nosed Albatross controversy which do not duplicate material now on the Dab. See the fundamental and very well established material at Dab & MoSDab.
  --Jerzy•t 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  • I also suggest to you that the potential controversiality of a page move is limited in proportion to the brevity of its existence. In the case of a day-old single-editor article, i counsel you to respect a presumption that its title is not well thought-thru.
    --Jerzy•t 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    
    • Ooh! While it's doesn't make a difference re the move, i see i owe you an apology for my carelessness that let me say that, without checking my (false) impression that your recent two edits, and mine, were the only ones. There's no real excuse for my making such mistakes.
      --Jerzy•t 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      
• I had delayed saving Talk:Yellow-nosed Albatross while working on a new template that it uses; you may feel less slighted in light of that comment, even in the absence of delay for discussion.
  --Jerzy•t 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

The following sections existed at this point, but contain no talk and have been removed to archive ahead of the normal cycle:
TBcore test
This is the real TBcore test
TB (& TBnh test)
--Jerzy•t 08:32, 15 & 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On reflection, i left their edit history in the deleted revisions of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 06 (temporary) (and admin permissions are required to verify their creation), altho their content appears in some old revisions of Phases 06 thru (the pending) 09, from their respective creations (between 07:41 and 09:32, 21 June 2009) until today.
  --Jerzy•t 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

re Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup & its tk pg
Hello. I'm trying to clear the amount of pages in this category, so I've started discussions about the reasons for tagging and what can be done on the Talk pgs concerned. I don't know what to do with the pages on there at the moment; I only know hndis pages well. As you tagged several of the pages, you might want to add to the discussions. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to notify that I put an answer to one of your comments in this talk about voilà, as you "seldom ventures" on the Wikitionary site :-) BlaF. (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefered to use your talk page to answer your comments that (IMO) are not directly related to the voilà article:

• "Or is français an adverb in this case - "speaking Frenchly", in effect?" Français is simply the noun: "Je parle (le) français" (where the article "le" is implied.)
• Cedilla/Accents: don't worry if you forgot them; most of the time you can be understood without using them. There are only a few words where the missing cedilla/accent can change the meaning of your sentence (currently, the only one I remember is in: "ce fruit est sur/sûr (à manger)"; with sur you mean that the fruit is sour/acid (even if very few French people use the "sur" adjective nowadays) whereas with sûr you mean that there is no risk to eat that fruit.
• space before/after punctuation marks: the main difference between French and English rules are for the "?", "!", ";" and ":" marks: they all need a non-breaking space before them (and a normal space after.) The French quotation marks (« ») are also different as they need a non-breaking space after and before the opening and ending quotation marks. Usage also slightly differ from English when the closing quotation mark (or parenthese) is at the end of a sentence (or of a phrase in a sentence): the full-stop (or comma, semi-column...) that ends the sentence stay outside the quotation marks (parentheses.)
• "I tried to explained" -- Don't you know the verb "to explained?" :-) I explained, you explained, he/she/it explaineds... :-D No? Neither do I :-( but my fingers sometimes do, especially in a "verb@simple past + 'to' + another verb" construct; I know it and try to fix it everytime, but it looks like my check failed that time :-(
• "for", "with", "on": after reading your correction, any of the 3 prepositions is definitely better than the "to" I used. I think I (once again) did a word-to-word translation of the French when I typed this sentence :-(
• article or not article before the "French way"? Here again I think I did a bad translation of my French thoughts :-( If I tried to think in English (no -ed that time, did you notice ? ;-) instead, I think I would have written the following: "[...] as I'm not a native English speaker and often write my English prose the way I do in French..."
• -ise/-ize termination: for an unknown reason, I like to use the -ize termination with all the words but "emphasise" :-/
  BlaF. (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sr
Hi Jerzy,

You reverted my edit, but your explanation is not understandable.

You said: "(Undid revision 301634522 by Fudoreaper (talk) "(disambiguation)" sfxs exist as Rdrs to indicate the Dab is intent'ly lkd & non-bypable; on Dab pgs, also tell user what 2 expect)"

I don't understand your language, or your point. Can you explain more clearly?

My point was that disambiguation pages should link directly to articles, not via redirects; Disambiguation pages' purpose is to not obscure the article title, so that the user is aware of unique articles with similar, potentially confusing names. —fudoreaper (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The space available required compression, but i tried to get a lot in. Using more words:

  When a Redirect page has a title that ends with "(disambiguation)", that redirect exists primarily for the purpose of making it clear that editor who added it was intentionally linking to a Dab page, in contrast to the common situation where an editor makes the link to the Dab page without knowing whether it is a Dab or not, and the less common situation where the editor realizes that it is a Dab that probably should be bypassed (by replacing the lk to the Dab with a lk to on of the entries that appears on the Dab) but is not immediately clear which article should be the target. A "(disambiguation)" link demonstrates intentionally linking to a Dab page where such bypassing would be erroneous.

  In the case of an article lk'd from a Dab page, the intent of the guideline deprecating piping and redirects is to follow the principle of least astonishment.

  In the case of a Dab lk'd to from another Dab page, bypassing the Rdr to the other Dab (as you did) would have the opposite effect:

  "SR" creates the expectation of linking to an article and sets up an annoying surprise;
  "SR (disambiguation)" is a grammar-free ambiguity, which may offer some warning, but may invite delay while the user considers what is meant.
  "SR (disambiguation)" is at least clearer to the extent of the meta-grammatical information that "(disambiguation)" is part of a page title (which most Dabs demonstrate, higher on the page, are likely to have something un-title-like tacked on), thereby ruling out most of the doubt that "SR (disambiguation)" presents, reducing the astonishment occasioned by landing on another Dab page, and avoiding the situation of landing on a Dab when expecting an article and starting to wonder whether that Dab-to-Dab lk was the first in an intolerably long chain.

It may be you have read MoSDab but not Dab, as is common. I think you'll find (perhaps on the 2nd, and shorter of those two guidelines) at least examples, that show the intent to recommend my version (and none that hint at yours). If not, i think viewing my contribs, doing a find for entries that have "Dab-CU" in the summary, and examining such pages' edit histories would show you numerous cases where i've either added that tag and others treated such cases that way, or where i've done it that way myself, and that aspect of my edit stands unchanged.
--Jerzy•t 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Jerzy. For someone seeking simplicity, you are very verbose. I must admit I still do not understand your point, but I will not object to leaving the page the way it is now, as the difference is trivially minor. Cheers, —fudoreaper (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, i have to note that i have no idea what the reference to "simplicity" means, other than being a PA.
  --Jerzy•t 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

Hey, I've read your message on my talk page, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to convey. I now understand that only pages that have a primary subject should have their disambig pages moved to (disambiguation), is that correct? If there's anything else I missed in your message, could you clarify it? Thanks for correcting me! Netalarm 08:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page is quite complicated :-) Netalarm 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, i have a talent for complicating things.
  --Jerzy•t 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Well, you missed a lot, but it was probably more valuable for me to state somethings precisely than for you to absorb. I have a talent for complicating things.
  --Jerzy•t 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

I think this deserves an award for most information crammed into an edit summary. So, here's the worlds smallest barnstar: ·  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks; i think there was room for a little more info if it had mattered, but i seem to recall there was no more than a character or two left. Fortunly bran cnstruz abrs wel!
  --Jerzy•t 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]