User talk:JackLumber/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, JackLumber/Archive1, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  RJFJR 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To The Power That Be

Sorry if I offended. You mistook my ham-handed humor as annoyance. Far from it. Typing lacks a good deal of nuance. I assumed that an arch phrase such as "Powers That Be" on WP would be so obviously hyperbolic and out of place as to be funny, but then I also club baby seals for fun. Pax. -- Gnetwerker 18:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. My reply. --JackLumber 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

List of words mainly used in American English

Hello JackLumber - could I suggest that the artcle List of American English words not used in British English is renamed to List of words mainly used in American English (link updated to List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom because of proposed deletion of redirect page - TrevorD 19:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)), rather than the move you are doing, as the move loses the edit history, which is normally regarded as a Bad Thing. Instructions on moves can be found here: Help:Moving a page Regards WLD 14:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to impose myself on the guys fidgeting around with that page and reverting changes back and forth (I explained the reasons for the rewrite on the talk page thereof at "To ProhibitOnions and the Like of Him."), but if you think we can do it... The same thing is to be done with the List_of_British_English_words_not_used_in_American_English.

'Be Bold' and 'Just Do It'. A rename of the article with a #REDIRECT at the old article name should be fine - I think your proposed title makes more sense - even for almost exactly the same content. If you want to be nice about it, then create a /rewrite article under the new one. If people *really* don't like the new name, then the rename can always be reverted back, still preserving the edit history. Doing a copy/paste of the article text really isn't the recommended way. If you are doing a detailed job, it is also polite to look at 'What links here', and edit all the linking articles to point to the new name as well. I woud imagine the same would need doing for the proposed List of words mainly used in British/Commonwealth English - or maybe we need:

• List of words mainly used in British English (link updated to List of British words not widely used in the United States because of proposed redirect deletion TrevorD 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
• List of words mainly used in Irish English
• List of words mainly used in Australian English
• List of words mainly used in South African English
• List of words mainly used in New Zealand English
• List of words mainly used in Caribbean English

WLD 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Watershed

I've thought for a few days now that it might be sensible to submit this contentious issue to some external group of WP admins, or something, because the disambiguation approach is a WP thing. To get a judgement from people outside the debate. Yay/nay? I just want it settled so I can put content in the right page. Daniel Collins 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

North American English

I couldn't at first figure out why you were making the revisions to the North American English article to remove the links to the Commonwealth English article. The first concern I had was removing the link to the helpful discussion in the Commonwealth article to Cdn. v. Br. English (which you agreed to restore - thanks). The other reason (which I didn't have space to mention in the edit summary) was the fact that the Commonwealth article dealt with Carribean English, which I thought was a completely logical link in an article on NA English. Only afterwards did I notice that the NA English article deals only with Canada and the US, and does not address the Carribean. So, despite my earlier edit, I do now agree with your edit removing those references, esp. that last paragraph. I ought to have paid closer attention. Skeezix1000 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Regarding your recent edits to several articles "correcting" their comma usage from '"A", "B", "C",' to "A," "B," "C,"', I strongly recommend that you read the WP:MoS#Quotation_marks section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. You may also be interested to know that the actual correct formatting for the quotation marks on The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 'as diverse as "agent," "essay," "purge," "stratagem," "ambassador," "axiom," and "pellagra,"' is, in fact, to not use quotation marks at all, but instead to use italics, to make it clear that the words themselves are being discussed, not their meaning. -Silence 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I apologize, I went a tad overboard. Sometimes I forget we are on the Internet, and I don't even realize what I actually am doing, as regarding that italicization thing—yes, I even knew it goes the way you correctly pointed out. Thanks for the heads-up, --JackLumber 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Wikipedia's style conventions aren't all easy to get used to; to tell the truth, the first few dozen Wikipedia articles I copyedited, I went around putting the commas back into the quotation marks too! That, and overusing serial commas, ignoring the italicizing rules, deleting British English variants willy-nilly, etc. Wikipedia editing is always a learning process, so I'm just glad to have helped you with that today. Next time, you can point out to me when I've screwed up some grammatical oddity, and then we'll be even. ;D -Silence 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

American and British English spelling differences

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. 60.240.88.11 has also been blocked. The dispute was not simple vandalism, and being "right" in a content dispute does not make you exempt from 3RR. The best thing to do is to just report the violation, wait for the wrongheaded editor to be blocked and let someone else revert it rather than violate 3RR yourself. The sky won't fall if m:The Wrong Version is up for a few hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"vandalism"

Disagreements between editors are not vandalism. Please stop calling your changes reversions of vandalism, because that is not what you are doing. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the dispute between me and that Australian user and then you'll figure out what I meant by "vandalism." Maybe not "vandalism," strictly speaking, but something pretty close to it. JackLumber 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did see them, that was why I made my comment. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Who am I? I'm an admin, one of many who might find your failure to follow WP:NPA and may wind up having to block you if you continue. Look, I've been very polite. I said "please", I suggested that you follow dispute resolution, and you respond by attacking me, as well. You might want to tone down your rhetoric. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JackLumber, WLD here. It's as well to be as polite as a cowboy in a saloon full of gunmen round here. I'll make the same (verbatim) suggestion to you as to User:Zoe - Might I suggest you both back off, take a few deep breaths, count to ten, then aim to achieve mutual understanding, possible consensus, assume good faith on both parts, make no personal attacks (expressly or by implication) and simply make Wikipedia a friendly place to produce ever-improving articles? (fx:Head popping back under parapet) WLD 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Immediately

Hi Jack. That use of 'immediately' that you recently added to the US/British page makes me cringe too, and I'm British. In fact, I thought it was an Americanism! It's not correct usage on this side of the pond, so I doubt that it needs to be listed. However, it may just be that I have failed to notice it. --Heron 10:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: American and British English spelling differences

It will do.

Regards,
Mark (IP: 60.240.88.48) 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: American and British English differences

Becareful what you revert, you reverted some of the changes I made. I beg to differ with your view, that's why you should bring it up as a concensus on the discussion page, before making major changes that some may not agree with, that's how edit wars begin. 60.240.88.48 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Well yes I did delete some of your changes, but then read through some of them and restored some of your changes [1] 60.240.88.48 13:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I protest your accusation, I'm not reverting but making content changes you obviously do not like, It is you who is braking the 3 Revert Rule, by keep on reverting my content changes. 60.240.88.48 13:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And you reverted some my minor changes, and I didn't agree with some of your major changes. 60.240.88.48 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WHY? Because "commoner" reads very badly, it was not the right word to use, bad grammar in other words. I felt "mostly" is also a better word to use and the sentence reads better with this change. 60.240.88.48 13:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Please explain? 60.240.88.48 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not standard to use the word "commoner" in the sense you used it for British English, and Australia English takes its cue from mostly British English, but sometimes from American English. 60.240.88.48 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, do you not watch BBC World, British television programs, read British publications (such as books, magazines), that's how I know "more common" is better to use. 60.240.88.48 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make it right either. 60.240.88.48 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now your starting to get personal. 60.240.88.48 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible violation of 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 60.240.88.48 13:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read though it, I know it well enough, do you? 60.240.88.48 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you are getting very personal, but you also don't seem to know the English language all that well either. Also I have counted three of your reverts as one :) 60.240.88.48 14:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of incorrect spelling on talk pages is okay, stop being picky. It's done by a lot of editors when they are typing fast and then do not check their spelling before saving. Because it's not a big deal. You need to cool off, pal 60.240.88.48 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, to my knowledge I have never complained about your spelling on talk pages! 60.240.88.48 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress

Hi Jack - don't get stressed by taking part in an edit war. It's not that important in the scheme of things. If a change you think is 'wrong' remains unreverted for a day or so, it is no big deal. By trying to 'win' a war, everybody loses, whereas documenting unapprehended differences teaches us all. If there's more than one view about how things 'should' be, document all views in an NPOV way, allow the reader to decide, and move on to better things. The informed reader will come to their own conclusions about which arguments presented have merit, after all...Best Regards, WLD 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Interlocking tower

Thanks for the heads-up. I noticed that it was there just moments before your note; I'll take a closer look later this morning. Slambo (Speak) 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Flammable

Glad to see you commented out the paragraph on flammable. I think your note is probably right. My understanding is that laws were introduced to prohibit the use of inflammable on official labels or notices where they could be misinterpreted, particularly by non-native speakers. I've seen a fire extinguisher, made in Britain in 1988, which nowhere uses the word inflammable but refers to the extinguisher's use on flammable liquids. I would guess that this wording is decreed by a regulation that probably copied earlier regulations in the U.S. Whether people have entirely stopped using inflammable in speech is another matter - I would guess they haven't. Adrian Robson 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be skeptic?

Thanks for the info... ;-) ...Kenosis 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent page moves

Jack, you may have seen here (and if not, you now will!) that I've sent a message to Marco79 about his recent page moves. Hope that's OK with you? I know you've already changed the archive page, but IMHO we either need to move things back or get everything else changed. Incidentally, the revised intro I was writing (mentioned elsewhere) included a comment to try to stop the arguments about non-UK British/Commonwealth English. FWIW, my initial attempt is here. So far, I've only done the bit in the box - which I thought might be a suitable template for the top of all the related pages? (The bit below the ==== line is all the original article.) I would appreciate your thoughts TrevorD 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

American and British English differences intro.

Thanks for the response. So do you mean you'd like me to continue with re-doing the intro for American and British English differences (subject to your suggestions)? And potentially also the related articles, in time? TrevorD 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Thanks for the further response. I've noted your comments and will let you know when there is more to read. Regards TrevorD 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now finished my first draft of the revamped intro, and thanks for your recent comments. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at it. A few points to bear in mind:

• Altho' I use English professionally (as a patent attorney), I am not a linguist and therefore could have misused technical terminology, etc.. Please correct as appropriate.
• As we discussed previously, I have omitted the lists of countries using each type of English, and these could go into the respective articles in time.
• I have retained the term "Commonwealth English" (in view of some of the earlier controversy), but don't know whether this is an accepted term, and would appreciate your advice.
• As you've remarked, some of it could actually serve as a historical background section rather than just an intro, but the paras on Canadian, Commonwealth, American & British English probably wouldn't fit in such a section and may need reordering if they were to remain as an intro.
• All of the info I've used has been taken from WP articles and talk, etc., (or from personal knowledge).

Let me know your thoughts, either by comment and/or by editing it. TrevorD 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Kinda busy now, but I'll be right back. Jack

Yes - no hurry at all. Anytime in the next week or so. -- TrevorD 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Here is a re-organised version of the intro. The original version is still in the same place and unchanged (except for minor corrections and the inclusion of today's addition by Unclebob). The new version has no substantial content changes (some small areas of rewording), but the primary difference is that I have tried to break it into 1. an intro & 2. an initial section on Historical background. I'll leave you to look at it when you have time. -- TrevorD 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

New words

Jack, just to say thanks for keeping the list of words Running/Standing for an Entry, or Prospective Additions up to date. I looked through them to see if I could help with any but find I don't know the US / UK differences for them! Noting that you had updated "mortuary" in that list, I looked at the entry (because I didn't know the difference). That made we wonder, do you use "undertaker" for "funeral director"; if not, it needs adding to a list. -- TrevorD 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack
Sorry if I posted a message instead of fixing it (I assume you're talking about "paddy wagon"?). I do usually change it myself if I'm reasonably sure - don't know why I didn't then. I think I was in a hurry and/or in the middle of something else.
When I'm not sure of the US usage (or even if there is any US usage), I tend to leave a message. With mortician I was thinking of adding it but wanted to check the UK dictionary first (which I've just done - it has "(chiefly N Am) n an undertaker"). Now added.
As regards the redirects for deletion, I was going to (and will) add comments to back you up - but I had to stop for dinner before I got that far!
Incidentally, I'm nearly done on the intro re-write. Will update you again soon.
Regards TrevorD 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect deletes

Have now added my "twopenn'orth" to the deletion comments. I haven't commented on the Australian & Canadian articles because I've never looked at them. But I do wonder why those titles aren't "List of ..." consistent with the Am & Br word lists? And I note there are several pages linked to both the Aus & Can old titles - I have NOT updated those. -- TrevorD 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anorak - or not!

Now why didn't I think of looking up "Anorak" in WP?!

In fact, what - very indirectly - made me think of the term was your mention a few days ago of being a "railfan" - or a "rail enthusiast" in BrE, or (less politely) a "rail anorak". I thought of that yesterday when my wife & I went for a ride on the Bluebell Railway to see the bluebells (which in fact are quite poor this year due to a late spring here). I believe I read that it is the only preserved railway (in the UK?) running wholly with steam trains - a lot also use some diesel trains. One interesting snippet (to me) is that Sheffield Park station has one platform in the eastern hemisphere and one in the western hemisphere, because the Greenwich Meridian runs right through the station! -- TrevorD 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Waggers#.27different_than.2Fto.2Ffrom.27

Thanks for your input. Wp:mos#National_varieties_of_English says, and I quote, "Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both." Since "Different from..." is accepted globally but "Different than..." is by and large unique to the USA, I think it's better that we make the change to a universally accepted version, as MOS states. Waggers 08:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"f.t."

Jack, What does f.t. mean in your editing comment (f.t. make redundant)? To me (and Chambers), F.T. means Financial Times; Ft = Fort; ft = foot, feet; but f.t. has no meaning. -- TrevorD 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We use fine-tune, and I wouldn't have considered it an Americanism - but it may have originated over there. -- TrevorD 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You "reversion"

I am getting a bit upset with you behaviour on wikipedia, but partcularly you narrow minded reversions (I'm probably not the only one who agrees with this view, see Longhair). These reversion are not at all helpfull. Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

"realize that no serious scholar in the world (including Australia) would write that way." How do you know? I went through the Australian education system and (particularly at the Primary level) can give Australian English priority. Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

"In that _context_, your references where out of line." That's not very fair to say that some Englishes are more out of line than others, I have already spent a lot of time on wikipedia revising such references, notations and comparisons, most notably on this page. Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

Skeptical

Seems like I'm getting into deep water here! My concern was only that Skeptic/Sceptic was not a good example of changes post-Webster (as the earlier text seemed to imply) or in the 19th century (as your clarification, after my change, spells out). I was basing this solely on what the Oxford Dictionary says. Certainly, the earliest examples (16th century) are with a "k" (skeptick). It's not clear from the examples given by the OED whether "sceptic" had already fully taken hold before the first few American settlements - the change is happening around the same time: 1598 - skeptick; 1654 - sceptick. During the initial period of emigration it seems likely that some were using "k" and some "c". Certainly, by 1776 the "c" version must have been well established in England. Although Johnson lists "skeptic" a little earlier than this, people in England take no notice of him and stick with the newer Latin-based "sceptic" that had already come into use a hundred years earlier.

So I felt that there must be better examples of Victorian changes than this. The transition to "sceptic" had taken place in England much earlier and was almost certainly used by some early settlers, too. So I removed it from the article. I couldn't actually think of any better examples so just removed it for the time being.

After writing the above, I now find that (contrary to what I would have expected!) Webster, oddly, seems to prefer "sceptic". [2] I have no way of knowing whether this website is accurate, however. So I'd still suggest dropping this word as an example of Britain changing in Victorian times and America sticking with the original - I think it's more complicated than that. There must be some better examples that could be used (like those that you've added recently.) Adrian Robson 11:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

More background here Adrian Robson 11:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The/the reference

It has been suggested by user TrevorD that I might approach you with regard to a discussion taking place on talk:American and British English Differences, regarding the capitalisation of the word "the" when it forms part of a proper noun, as he feels you may be able to contribute to it. If you would be so willing, could you look in on the section? Thank you.LessHeard vanU 13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian English is influenced by British and American English

I'm now set to debate this after having thought it through, although "British English" has been cited as an "infuence," I beleive that the actual infuence is not that simple, for a while I though about it and concluded it may actually be Commonweath English, not specifically "British English" that infuenced it. Actually, I now realise that Irish English, Scottish English, and Scots have all influenced it. On two occasions I had mistaken very strong Candian accents for Irish accents. The second time this hapened, it was a matter of me asking someone if she was Irish and she replied "No Canedian," then I realised it was a Canadian accent. Also, it is beleived that the Canedian raising is related to the Scots vowel length rule. Someone told me that some vowels in Canadian English may be similar to Irish English. So this page does turn out to be UK/US centric after all. Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

I don't know what ipso facto means? Besides, the inclusion of Irish English (and even Scottish English (and especially Scots)) as "British English" (if there is techically such a thing) is reductive, and can be a touchy issue for the Scots and especially the Irish (wikipedia is not censored, indeed!). If Hiberno-Scottish Engish has infuenced both "American" English and Canadian English then why is Canadian raising (as the name suggets, compare it with the Scots vowel length rule) more rampant in Canada than in the United States (some American accents, including Paul Simon's, have it but only as for /ai/ and not /au/). JackLumber, forgive me for repeating something but it's appropriate here, really strong Canadian accents sound more Irish and any American accent I have ever heard, I suspect that Candain English is not much more different from Hiberno-Scottish English (but particularly Irish English) than Australian English is from British English (for us educated Australians, the term 'British English' refers almost specifically what English English would refer in in British Isles), but American English seems much more different. And yes I did know and consider that Ireland has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. In terms of spelling, we use "Britsh" spelling here in Australia and we neith even call it that, nor accosiate it with GB (if anyone is prepared to dispute this with me, I would like to see their sources), and we sometime even call it "Australian spelling" when distinguishing to from American spelling, even though most Australians are aware of it's use in British English. Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

Who are you to tell me what I shuold know about Australian English spelling system when:

• I am an Australian wikipedian
• I went thorught the Australian education system and am quite aware of what spelling is accepted by it.
• I am quite aware the that, for example, that spelling rules introduced by Noah Webster in his dictionary are not offically accepted in Australia, eg, -er for -re, -or for -our, -ize for -ise, etc.
• I did not dispute that Australian English is not "British English," I was explaining that (offically) Australian spelling is (much) the same, but yet we do not call it "British spelling." Certainly Amercan spellings have been used in Australia but it is not official, especially in the education department.

Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

The reason I had 'much' in brackets is becuase I'm not aware of any (official) differences, and I have (I think it's appropriate to repeat it here) been through the Australian education system. Please consult Longhair or any other Australian wikipedian? Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

What do you mean by "C19 Australia?" Sorry, you're not quite right, the spelling may have by popular but that doesn't mean it was offically accepted in Australia. And I would like you to stop accusing me of "faulty knowledge," it's a touchy issue here in Australia becuase we Australian have often been accused by outsiders, particularly Englanders as "colonials" "lacking in education" and even "not knowing Australia as well as outsiders." How would you feel of you were a Canadian wikipedian who had been thorugh the Canadian education system and someone foreign wikipedian accused you of "fautly knowldge" about (even) Canadian English and it's spelling system? Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

I was aware of that spelling in the "Labor party" but that's a historical oddity, and it is standard practice in Australian English as stated in that article, to use the -our spelling, and yes it is also standard practice to use the -er and -ise spelling and there is no doubt that -or for -our, -er for -re and -ize for -ise, but they are considered "American spelling," but their "British" alternatives are not even called British spelling, and (I consider it appropriate to repeat it here) they are often called "Australian spelling" when distinguishing it from "American spelling." I am familiar with this terminology form having been educated in Australia. Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-)

"The meat & potatoes is, English as spoken in Australia has developed its distinctive features and traits, w.r.t. vocabulary, word formation, and even spelling" How could that be "meat and potatoes" (must be figurative). There are minor differences in usage and word meanings, but I think you're stuck in your bobsleigh, you have tried to provide spelling differences between "Britsh" and Australian English but I have disproved all of them so far. Jack, forgive me for reapeting something I mentioned earlier but I consider it approprate to repeat it here, how would you feel if you were a Canadian wikipedian and, for example, Aeusoes tried to tell you that 'rider' and 'spider' do not neccasarily *rhyme* in Canadian English, and you couldn't conceive of that being the case (I other words, you were convinced that their information was incorrect)? Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-|

Please remember to remain civil at all times when interacting with other editors. Referring to others contributions as 'faulty knowledge' and editing their own words on talk pages does not promote an atmosphere for constructive editing. -- Longhair 02:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OED

You'll be sorry to hear that I've been reading the OED again! Maybe what I've found will prompt you to do some more research. Still looking at the sentence which talks about "subsequent" changes, I think the word "cheque" may also not be a good example. (I'm sure there are good examples - just don't want to mislead readers with the examples given.)

The sentence currently says: On the other hand, subsequent tendencies in British spelling (e.g. cheque for check, baptise for baptize, jewellery for jewelry, kerb for curb, skilful for skillful etc.), in some cases favored by the francophile tastes of Victorian England, did not affect American English.

The word "subsequent" seems to imply that British usage changed in the 19th century, post-Webster, but that American usage was unaffected in these cases.

The OED says "cheque" comes from "exchequer" (whose spelling was mistakenly changed to "ex-" in the belief that it was from a Latin word, when it was actually Old French beginning "es-"). Originally, exchequer referred to a table marked out in squares, which was used by the treasury in the 1200s. The term cheque comes from an Exchequer Bill and refers in 1706 to the counterfoil of a bill. Later it was extended to any instrument with a counterfoil and eventually referred to instruments that weren't required to have a counterfoil, even though modern ones often still do for the benefit of the user rather than for the bank to check the instrument's validity.

So the influence is certainly French, but this doesn't look like a 19th century innovation. Francophile might also be a bit strong for a country occupied by Norman invaders! Francophone perhaps. The OED evidence suggests that the -que spelling has been fairly consistent since the 1200s. Again, one exception is Johnson who uses "check" in his dictionary. But almost all the other OED citations are with "-que".

I'd be interested to hear what you can find on this. Adrian Robson 08:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to see your addition on farming vocabulary. Interesting details. However, I'm still uncomfortable with this word "subsequent". Am I right in thinking that it's indicating that these British forms were introduced in the 19th century? I think that's how it would be interpreted by a new reader. I'm beginning to think that I might be misunderstanding the intention because I've now looked up skil(l)ful in the OED. This looks even more compelling than the others - almost all citations back to the 1300s have skil- rather than skill-, including, for example, Chaucer. So I'm beginning to think that I'm misunderstanding what this sentence is about. It doesn't look at all likely that the British changed from skillful to skilful in the 19th century. I'm also not convinced that chequered is much better than cheque as an example. Certainly, the che(c)kered form is earlier. But the question is really what was being used by most people around the 1600s when the potential for divergence first arose. (And I'll leave you to look up the citation dates for "kerb"!) Adrian Robson 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

More from Myrtone86

"There is _no_ sense in having the German term next to the English terms at railroad switch. Why not also Swedish, Hindi, or Afrikaans?" At first this seemed inconsistant because I came across it on this page but Angr has now removed it. The fact is that given your track record, you seem to favour NOR over NPOV, sometimes the two contradict, for example when all the relevet sources are NNPOV (for example when prioritising "British" and Amecian English). It makes me think that you are biased yourself, you are a US wikipedian (nothing happens outside your borders, right?) with a possibly low "opinion" on us Australians (we are not colonials anymore!). I also think your are so set in your ways and given that you like to be right, you may as well be in Category:Strict wikipedians. -- Myrtone@JackLumber.com.au:-(

List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language

Hi Jack,

I was bold and made some radical changes to the formatting of the above article - adding a 'where used' column. I think a couple of other editors didn't really like that - if you have the time, I'd value your comments on the talk page. Thanks. WLD 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Leftenant and other edits

Jack,

The pronunciation lef in lieutenant is, as far as I know, not used in the UK Royal Navy, where le-tenant is the usual pronunciation, that pronunciation replaced an earlier loo-tenant or loo-tnent. So I guess you should nuance your edit.

Why is sleep late vs. sleep in obscure? I never heard the latter expression until I moved to Montreal. Sleep in is related in form but not meaning to Dutch inslapen. It could be something new to me like listen up for listen (or maybe listen here).

I won't argue about waggon vs. wagon as I am not au courant.Albertde 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashfalt

I notice, Jack, that nobody is challenging my ascertion re the Canadian pronunciation of asphalt despite the fact that the Canadian dictionaries I have don't mention it.Albertde 23:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Signiture?

There has been a discussion about my signiture here. I have been scapegoated there.Myrtone@{{PAGENAME}}.com.au
PS I don't userstand "the reason is always the same, and you know it well. Get over it." Not all readers will automatically understand *British* that way so I wanted to make it clear so they all know, also, comparisons with just "British" and American English is not NPOV (NPOV and NOR sometimes contradict and Jimbo claims the former to be non-negiciable), even though they are the main infuences. That is my understanding anyway (but it is not neccasessarily inferior, not even if it is different from *your* expirience of "serious" schollars).

Isolate

You say:

"Hi.

1. Isolate is definitely a back-formation from isolated.

2. You might want to check this page out.

Best, JackLumber. 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"

I don't see that. It may be that isolated appeared first in the language, even by some centuries, but to call isolate a back-formation implies that isolated was not really a past participle form at all and that the verb was formed on the mistaken impression that it was. See my comments on "donate" and "isolate" on the "Back-formation" talk page.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear JackLumber

I have removed that comment I left on your talkpage becaus you havn't answered it. Myrtone

Brass Monkeys (AmE, BrE diff.)

The phrase is possibly neither an Americanism or a 'Britishism' - if you've heard of it in America, I've definately heard it in the UK. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You sure it originated in the US? Forgive me if there is evidence on one of your frequented pages. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 09:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

re: AmE article

I didn't fix it because I don't have a single citable source I can use, other than my own anecdotal experience, which is a flagrant violation of WP:NOR, unfortunately.  :-( Tomer^talk 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

South Australia

I have been in a revert war on that page, the has been a discussion on it here and here, what do you think?Myrtone PS, Micheal used the word primacy in the discussion, and I didn't understand it, so I asked him what it means and he has refused to reply (possibly not understanding that I don't know it by now).

Oftenest

Are you quite sure that's the preferred use? Onelook.com checks dozens of dictionaries and it came up with one result, at dictionary.com. - BalthCat 03:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian words edit

Hi JackLumber. Saw your removal of beaver (of course, and not exclusively Canadian anyway; more American in fact) and buttfuck nowhere (cute but also I suspect not exclusively Canadian). But I did rather like "gong show", although I wouldn't have used it with the indefinite article as the edited-out example did; as in "we were f**king gongshow last night", which doesn't mean only drunk but also over-the-top craziness; which brings to mind "gooned"; but that also, maybe, isn't exclusively Canadian. Whaddya think about a page of Canadian obscenities and vulgarities for stuff like this to go? We could move "pissed/pissed off" and similar thereSkookum1 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wanker 'correction'

Haha, man, don't mock my correction, the word was spelt so wrong that I only added the first "r" and didn't read the rest of the word. So although I /did/ make a correction, I didn't scrutinise the rest of the word for further errors, which, on reflection, I should have. -Piro RoadKill 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to this page

Did the term 'railroad' really originate in British English? As far as I know, the original term British for what we today would call a railway was Iron-road, not railroad, tramroad was another early term, the former term surives in modern German as the lone translation *Eisenbahn.* Myrtone

I'm raising the issue about Spelling differences

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. We need a consistent policy on this. I'm objecting to your tendency (and that of other users) to substitute a link to American and British English differences for parenthetical notations of which dialect goes with which spelling. --Coolcaesar 17:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaeser: Thanks for raising the issue. I disagree with your objection. See you at the MoS page! --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 10:17 (UTC)

I don't want someone to bite my head off (remember, though I may be head-strong, I'm very new to WP...), so I thought I'd ask here: is it time to starting taking some sort of "pulse" (or "survey" or whatever the appropriate wikijargon would be) of what people feel about my proposal for spelling? --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-25 -22:19 (UTC)

Citations

Please read WP:CITE to learn about different ways of citing sources; saying "OED Online" doesn't really cut it. Wikipedia:Citations quick reference might also be helpful. TomTheHand 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, every time you run into an "orig. never-never land" flag in that article, that's essentially because the OED quotations show that idiom originated in never-never land, no need for special citations at individual entries, unless the issue is particularly controversial---the OED is the bible, I never write anything that would contradict the OED. I guess I can't just place a link to the OED online, given that the occasional user would need a (spendy) subscription to access it. Maybe we can explicitly emphasize, in the intro, the role the OED has in the article. JackLumber. 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TomTheHand, the OED research is questionable at best, it is half-arsed and lacking in many areas. The OED is not the 'bible' for the English language, you cannot just use one citation and get away with it, please use more than just the OED, as it implies lazy research by referring to only one source. Did you not learn anything at school concerning citations.

If you cannot place a link to the OED online — I recommend not to — then just find another (more credible) source for the information. 203.164.189.167 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

203, what you say is just laughable. There's *_NOTHING_* more credible than the OED. Period. JackLumber. 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Being under Attack

Unfortunately, I am really swamped with work right now. I'm going to try to go through the various issues involved, and help out. It might take a while, though. Hang in there. I respect your contributions, and the other people who also do will presumably get on board soon. --Cultural Freedom "talk" 2006-07-15 08:36 (UTC)

Darwinek

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Darwinek 14:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Darwinek: You need to bone up on WP policies. JackLumber is not vandalizing anything. Indeed, it is you who are vandalizing your own talk page. All he did was restore the material you vandalistically removed. Please read the links I provided. You claim you can do whatever you want with your talk page. Before repeating that claim, please read the links. You will discover that you are incorrect. I have no time for an edit war this afternoon, nor do I have a desire for one. So I will wait, and hope you restore the material yourself. I will return to this matter in a few hours. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-18 15:00 (UTC) P.S. You claim you are an admin. If you are, and you block JackLumber for restoring material you vandalistically remove from your talk page, that would constitute a serious abuse of your admin privileges.

Don't forget to endorse the WP:RFC/USER about darwinek. Violet/riga, a known harrasser of Cultural Freedom and other Americans, has already chimed in. --WikiFair1 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you're doing Jack, and I'll continue to revert even if he blocks you (which you would think would end his adminship). -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

I've looked at that RFC and have endorsed the summary at the top. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

JL- Thanks for your sanity and support. To be honest with you, I'm getting depressed about WP, and wondering whether it's time to start a different wiki encyclopedia with more sensible rules. (Competition is beautiful.) I don't know. Would love to know the secret to how you've managed to stay at this for so long without going insane. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-19 21:55 (UTC)

So long? Just six months—as a regular, much more time under the hood... JackLumber. 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CF - "wondering whether it's time to start a different wiki encyclopedia with more sensible rules" - some other guy had that idea ages ago and staterd WikInfo (WikInfo). IIRC One of the original ground rules of the site was that it would only use American English, but almost immediately he found that this rule was impossible to maintain. The only/first major contributor (to the code-base as well as the Encyclopaedia) was Australian and insisted on using Commonwealth English. Jooler 12:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming clean. I disagree with CF on this one. Luckily most wikipedians don't give a damn about such sidetracking issues. When you run into such users as Rkeys (talk · contribs) you obviously get depressed. User:Darwinek turned out to be a good guy, after all. I guess we all should chill out a bit and use common sense. See further at Talk:Motor neurone disease#Page moves, I might turn that paragraph into a proposition sooner or later. JackLumber. 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We're all (mostly) good guys. The "This user dislikes American 'English' (common grammatical and spelling errors mistaken for dialect)." thing on my user-page is a joke. I didn't even write it. Or the other one. They are both someone else's userbox that I linked to, until all the POV userboxes were systematically removed and subst'd. It's called humour, but people seem to take it too seriously. It's true I do get annoyed when someone comes along and for no reason other than their own ignorance or indifference to cultures other than their own go about changing British spellings to American ones it happends far far too frequently, and I make an effort to try to stem this tide because you get things like this happening all the time. This one was even done by someone's BOT!. It hardly ever happens the other way round. See Guerilla UK spelling campaign Jooler 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks- I'm all for common sense! But I honestly do think it's worth considering creating other encyclopedic wikis, each with different governing principles, just to see what will happen. I'm not giving up on Wikipedia yet, but I do think there are some serious problems that likely never to be solved.

Jooler, as for your claim about dialect shifts, I think you're living in the past. (And, note, I'm willing to trust you on how spelling shifts took place in that past.) Because there are so many new users from outside of the U.S., and because they think sneakily changing the z spellings of -ize/ization words by, for ex., changing "List of Militant Organizations" to "List of terrorist organisations" is a way to punish Americans (or something), spelling of Wikipedia articles is now moving, very rapidly, towards Commonwealth spellings. These sorts of sneaky changes are happening all over the place. Sure, there are more important things to worry about than spelling, but preventing 20 year-old semi-literate Germans (or whatever) from changing from American spellings in a way that violates guidelines is Good, seems to me. Likewise, if someone were to say that Orange (colour) should be changed to "Orange (color)", it should be opposed. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 15:59 (UTC)

I'm living in the past? List of militant organizations was moved almost exactly one year ago, and I still can't see anyone debating a name change - You got any recent examples? Of actual moves? --- Looking further into this, it appears that prior to List of militant organizations it was at List of Militant Organizations (bad capitali(z/s)ation) and before that at List of terrorist groups and it began life at Terrorist groups. The move from organizations to organisations was made by User:JK the unwise who said at the time "I couldn't get it to go to the american spelling (as page allready existed) so have moved to UK spelling". He couldn't move it because List of terrorist organizations was already a redirect with an edit history and he's wasn't an admin. This is an example of "A way to punish Americans (or something)" - is it? Pah! Jooler 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire process of the move, which included the needed vote to get an admin to return the page to the 'z'-spelling. The vote didn't pass. That was absurd. (Do some digging in the history of the whole move, the ass'd discussions, etc., and I believe you'll come to understand what I mean.) --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 17:20 (UTC)

You said "sneakily changing the z spellings of -ize/ization words by, for ex., changing "List of Militant Organizations" to "List of terrorist organisations" is a way to punish Americans" - how can you possibly make this claim given the circumstances in which it was moved!? It is an indefensible mis-characterisation of the original move. Some people withdrew their vote to oppose the move to the Z spelling once the circumstances of the original move were known and others did not, perhaps they did not re-visit the page after initally voting, who knows? The result was that the vote was not carried. So that is your gripe is it? You lost a vote and you're not happy, well that's democracy for you. I've lost plenty. For example when "River Plate" was moved to Rio de la Plata without sufficient discussion, the move to the Spanish name was taken as a fait accompli and the subsequent voting was therefore stacked in favour of Rio de la Plata as currnet name, despite the circumstances of the move. When the vote was lost I was furious, but there we have it. Jooler 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't lose the vote, Wikipedia did. Votes shouldn't even be needed on matters like this. If someone came along and proposed that Color be moved to Colour, because (let's say) George Bush "is a poophead," it might well pass. But it shouldn't be allowed to. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-22 08:39 (UTC)

People decide for themselves the policies of Wikipedia, and people make up their own minds about why pages should be moved or not. If you don't like the policies or the use of voting for things then go found your own Wiki, or debate the issues on policy pages and convince people to your way of thinking. Interesting example regarding Bush, people voted him in for all sorts of silly reasons would you disenfranchise them because oof it? Tear down the whole system because certain people don't share your groupthink? Jooler 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your "20 year-old semi-literate Germans (or whatever)" they are more likely to have their English dictionary for MS Word (or whatever) set to the default installation of US English. So whatever point you're trying to make there is lost on me. Jooler 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course a BBC programme is not a BBC program... Well, Darwinek is a speaker of English as a foreign language. Being into linguistics, I can assure you that sometimes even native speakers seem to be... let me say... confused, let alone ESL/EFL speakers. One time I was fooling around with a written survey of North American English; a question was, if I recall correctly, "What's the name of the garment you wear over pajamas?" (The answer could be robe, bathrobe, dressing gown etc.) One of the (about 200, I guess) responses was, "Is pajamas underwear? What I wear to bed is 'pajamas,' otherwise there isn't something you wear over pajamas." Speaking of MS Word, the MS Word spell check for Canadian English allows colour and color, theatre and theater, realize and realise. All the way from the Department of Consistent Style. And what about the guy who repeatedly tried to move Train station to Railway station on the ground that train station is "incorrect English"? Just as absurd as those who regularly bust out the chestnut pie to support a nonexistent worldwide supremacy of American spelling. Get real guys, there's not just us (US). Same goes for the "Google" argument. And the Indian customer (Talk:Gasoline, archives) who said that Indian English should be used since most English speakers live in India?. Here's the key. JackLumber. 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I would find that question confusing myself, I have neither pyjamas (BrE sp) nor dressing gown (as I would call it). BTW I agree with you 100% I suspect the guy suggesting Indian English should be used was humorously attempting to counter the usual rant about US dominance that you hint at above. Jooler 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I got the survey data right here. One out of 200 indeed answered "I don't wear pajamas," and another "I don't know what you wear over pajamas"... JackLumber. 23:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that User:Cultural Freedom is apparently referring to user:Darwinek when he talks of a "20 year-old semi-literate German or whatever changing from American spellings " - this is a gross way to characterise a great contributor. Someone who has created articles at American Negro Labor Congress and American Folklife Center and National Association of Colored Women - yes it's ohhh so obvious that this guy is on a campaign to rid the World of American spellings isn't it. If CF was not in fact referring to user:Darwinek, who is 20 yrs old and comes from Central Europe (which could be described as "Germany or whatever") then I apologise. Jooler 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. (Wasn't referring to D.) --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-22 08:12 (UTC)

So this was a hypothetical semi-illiterate German (or whatever) then is it? Are there a lot of that type changing American spellings? Jooler 08:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, lots of 'em. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-26 11:13 (UTC)

I presume this ia a joke. Jooler 18:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to other editors

comment - Jack Lumber has openly admitted that he follows me around to counter my "anti-American English systematic bias" - he means "systemic". See [[3]]. Jooler 07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that he does indeed mean "systematic." But you may well believe he should mean "systemic." Myself, I think he means what he says, and may well be correct! --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 15:09 (UTC)

Lush

Thanks for the enlightenment about lush. I apologize for not checking what the asterisk meant, but I guess then I wouldn't have got enlightened. What I do is cut out the Times crossword (that one from the London (ON) Free Press) and then forget to do it for 10 months. As for Just Shoot Me – great cast, mediocre scripts. John FitzGerald 22:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. JackLumber. 23:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dance capitalization

I noticed that you listed yourself as a linguist. There is currently a dispute at the Lindy Hop article the Dance WikiProject about the capitalization of dances that could use the expertise of a linguist. If you think you might be able to help, we would certainly appreciate your comments. Thanks! --Cswrye 05:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the Lindy Hop article! To expand this beyond just Lindy Hop (since the capitalization issue applies to other dances), would the names of other dances (such as Waltz, Salsa, and Tango) also be capitalized? One of the issues we're trying to work out is why some dance names are capitalized while others (such as ballet, jazz, and swing) are not. --Cswrye 14:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Explaining autumn

Just noticed your changes around the fall/autumn section, which prompted me to look at Autumn leaves and Autumn. I think from the American reader's point of view, things are pretty clear cut - the British scarcely ever use fall though they all understand it.

But I'm not so sure how clear things are for the non-American reader. I think a common impression may be that Americans always say and write fall and never autumn. But what about adjectival use as in Autumn leaves? And what about the Autumn article's hint that autumn may be quite common, or even the norm, when written. Is there anything to explain here for the non-American reader? If so, I think you're the one to do it! Adrian Robson 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)