Juno2010

Welcome!

Hello, Juno2010, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as "William McCormick", may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Usb10 ^Connected? 01:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "William McCormick"

The article "William McCormick" has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Usb10 ^Connected? 01:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

English/British distinction

Hi. Just to let you know that I reverted this edit that you made to English people. I don't think the conflation of English and British is something particular to Americans, but in any case this would need a reference per WP:Verifiability if it were to be mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Juno2010. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's fine for someone from England to be described as English rather than British. Edits like this are not necessary. Nev1 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And you need to STOP doing this on multiple pages without getting consensus on talk pages. This is not a decision that you alone can make. The "Texas" analogy is misleading. England is a country; Texas is a state. Many English Wikipedians are fine with "English". Cresix (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't stop and discuss this, you will be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Juno, what are you playing at? You're making a lot of work for other editors to undo your crusading antics. Please stop.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the "British" wording, but there appears to be consensus against that across multiple articles, so I agree with the others that these shouldn't be changed for now, unless a new consensus is reached.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am British, a university professor, and have lived in the US for 25 years, along with multiple other countires, and the US is the only one in my experience where people persistently and incorrectly use English when they mean British, or England when they mean Britain. I would happily take part in a discussion, but I suspect it would be pointless, because it would mean overturning 200+ years of incorrect usage. Wikipedia is an American web site, probably written primarily by Americans, and it is doing a disservice to the body of knowledge for American authors to impose their views about what is correct or not in this regard. The analogy with Texas is, strictly speaking, incorrect, but I use it to make a point. Describing numerous British rocks stars as English as as rong as describing John Mellencamp as a musician from Indiana. ANd if you look at Wikipedia you will find that it is internally inconsistent, using Britain/British for some bios (Ricky Gervais, for example) but England/English for the rest. What chance we could actually work out a "consensus" on this? Usertalk:Juno2010

You are making alot of presumptions based on nothing. There are plenty of Welsh, Scottish and English editors who prefer not to use British when a person's nationality is English, Welsh, etc. I believe you are confusing nationality with citizenship. Mick Jagger is English by nationality but holds a British passport as England does not have a devolved government.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

John Mellencamp is a musician from Indiana. He's a musician from the United States. Neither is wrong. Americans are fine with it either way, depending on how specific one wishes to be, just as most British Wikipedians are fine with "English" when one is referring to someone from England. That fact, nor your pronouncements, make Wikipedia an "American website". And no offense, but your credentials as a university professor are meaningless here (I also am a university professor). Wikipedia operates by reliable sources and consensus. You might want to read WP:5P before you decide whether this a place where you want to invest your time and energy here, or whether you would rather create an encyclopedia that is a British website. Best of luck. Cresix (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Several points to respond to. (1) Presumptions based on nothing Jeanne, other - that is - than my "meaningless" credentials as a scholar of British and European politics, I guess. (2) Where is the evidence that "most" British Wikipedians are fine with "English", Cresix? Do you have data on this? (3) What exactly is wrong, or factually incorrect, with use of the terms Britain and British? (4) "Consensus" means agreement, and we don't have agreement on this issue, thus no consensus. (5) I am not trying to create a British Wikipedia, Cresix - I'm trying to help create one that is accurate. I thought that's what it was all about. I suppose my efforts got a little bit of discussion going, but Cresix is right about time and energy - this as waste of both, so I'm signing off. Usertalk:Juno2010

(1) Again, your credentials are meaningless (as are mine and any other Wikipedia editor's). For all we know, you could be a university professor, or a butcher, baker, candlesitck maker, or a 15-year-old. (2) The "data" are the fact that "English" is rarely changed to "British" except on rare occasions when a rogue, crusading editor with an agenda decides to take it upon himself/herself to impose that agenda on Wikipedia. (3) Nothing is "wrong" with using the word "British" for someone from England. Nothing is "wrong" with using "English"; it's just more precise and the prevailing use on Wikipedia. (4) There was consensus by default (because it wasn't challenged) until your edits. Now the weight of opinion (so far ) favors not universally changing "English" to "British" (look at the comments on this talk page alone). Did you actually read WP:CON? (5) Well, if you want to edit here, you really must follow policies. Start by reading WP:5P, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CON. But if you don't want to follow those policies, you'll be more productive elsewhere. Cresix (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)