User talk:Mfwitten: Difference between revisions

Your revert of USB

Please check your grammar: "In general, there are four basic kinds or sizes related to the USB connectors and types of established connection" is not correct. It's either "types of connections" (what it was before your edit and what I reverted to) or (clumsy) "types of an established connection". The rest of your corrections are pretty much the same, mixing up singular and plural:

• "There are two types of pipe" must be plural "pipes"
• "limited by the current number and type of attached USB devices" must be plural "types" because there may be several types and not just one
• "Types of USB connector" – same thing

Must I go on? Zac67 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. Would you say the following?

• There is one type of pipes.

The type of the objects is "pipe"; there are two [sub]types of pipe. In other words, you are merely supporting a widespread heuristic error. Mfwitten (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5539/types-of-things-vs-types-of-thing – I won't even bother you with search engine voting (which can be wrong at times) but "types of connector" isn't serious, is it? Have you just a single RS for your claim? Zac67 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Superior possessive form"

Use -s's instead of -s' only when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud. Use only the apostrophe (without the s) when you would not pronounce an extra s or when making the possessive of a plural noun already ending in s (e.g., Beatles' or Stones' ). Source: Oxford dictionaries. Furthermore, this sort of thing is not a "minor edit" because it is open to disagreement. - Embram (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is "Touchstone Pictures" a plural noun? I would say it is not; then again, there are plenty of [non-American] English speakers who would even say that, e.g., "Walmart" or "IBM" is a plural noun… Mfwitten (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When you say the phrase Touchstone Pictures' new film out loud, do you pronounce an additional s at the end (i.e., do you say Pictures-es)? If not, then you shouldn't add an s after the apostrophe. - Embram (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I do, for the same reason that I pronounce an additional "s" in "Mr. Williams's new film". However, logically consistent though it may be, I'd never put myself in that position for aesthetic reasons—it sounds terrible; I'd rather say, for example, "new film by Touchstone Pictures".

If you say "Touchstone Pictures' new film", then it sounds like "Touchstone Picture's new film", from which a listener might erroneously infer that the name of the company is "Touchstone Picture" rather than "Touchstone Pictures". You are losing information, and thus language is failing. Mfwitten (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Then rather than break the rule by adding the extra s, I'd just just write it the other way round (e.g., "new film by Touchstone Pictures") which I agree is the better choice. - Embram (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mfwitten. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mfwitten. 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)

February 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Graham Hancock. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. There has been a lot of discussion about the wording of the introduction, and there is consensus that the current version is neutral and factual. Please have a look at the talk page, and discuss there if you want to try to change the consensus in favour of another wording. bonadea contributions talk 22:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Your mind is warped. Mfwitten (talk)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Graham Hancock, you may be blocked from editing.

Use the talk page to discuss your edits, as they are not uncontroversial. Please don't edit war - I'm sure you have seen enough cases where that ends badly, in your years here. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 22:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Your mind is warped. Mfwitten (talk)

Your recent editing history at Graham Hancock shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. bonadea contributions talk 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)