User talk:Wavelength/Archive 5

Thread retitled from "thanks".

• Thank you for your contributions to Climate change and agriculture and Pacific decadal oscillation. See wp:Tea. 108.73.113.91 (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. I edited "Climate change and agriculture" at 15:59, 22 June 2012. I edited "Pacific decadal oscillation" at 00:44, 21 June 2012.

I am revising the heading of this section from thanks to Climate articles edited: thanks, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). I am putting the topical information ("Climate articles edited") first, because it is more important. I am putting the attitudinal information ("thanks") second, because it is less important. Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just discovered WP:The newcomer's manual and I noticed that you had recently edited there. You might be interested in a new (a week old) project--- Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have edited the page, (three times), and the revision history shows only 11 revisions after the original edit that started the page at 01:30, 30 August 2009.

Thank you for telling me about Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, although I already learned about it from one page or another, but I do not remember which page that was. I have linked to it from two pages: Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians at 03:42, 10 July 2012 and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) at 16:03, 10 July 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Author/Wavelength

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Helicobacter Pylori. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I edited the article "Helicobacter pylori" exactly once, at 15:20, 17 May 2012.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms (version of 11:42, 13 July 2012) says: "When using scientific names, capitalize the genus but not the species or taxonomic rank below species if present". Paragraph 3 of the article "Binomial nomenclature" (version of 12:36, 12 June 2012) says: "In modern usage, the first letter of the first part of the name, the genus, is always capitalized in writing, while that of the second part is not, even when derived from a proper noun such as the name of a person or place."

Thank you for this invitation. However, I respectfully decline to participate in the study.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your excellent work on a Simplified MOS. You may be interested in the discussion here related to MOS issues. LittleBen (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. I opened discussions about the title and contents of a short version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Those discussions have been archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Title of short version of Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Contents of short version of Manual of Style respectively. User:Art LaPella started Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style and I made some revisions to it, including the addition of the shortcut "WP:SMOS". [I delayed this reply while I waited to see how the new page developed.]

—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "needs fixing".

You should see the following given it has two lins in the title: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&pe=1&#Have_an_Arabic_speaker_translate_this_Qadafi_capture_video μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw it after I read your reply, and before I read your 04:08 comment here.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The same question (with the same heading) has been posted again, and I revised the headings of both sections at 15:02, 28 July 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

[In harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings), I am changing the heading of this section from needs fixing to Heading needs fixing, which is more informative.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]Reply

Regarding your recent suggestions at the MoS, would you be willing to look and participate in the Sub-sectioning discussion going on at Australian Cattle Dog842U (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that, at 12:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC), you asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#When to subsection (version of 12:07, 4 August 2012), but I have not yet prepared a reply.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I posted my comments there at 18:40, 4 August 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your recent improvements to the article is highly appreciated and I would like to convey my gratitude for your kindness. I look forward to a critical commentary from you on the quality of the article and for further improvements please. Thanking you AshLey ^Msg 07:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome, and I accept your expression of gratefulness. When I saw your request on Noetica's talk page, I decided to help both of you by making a few revisions. Because very many things compete for my time and attention, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I am making no guarantee of providing "critical commentary" or "further improvements".

However, I acknowledge your admission of having "some limitation with English language" (that phrase should be "some limitation with the English language"). Therefore, in my wish to provide kind assistance, I invite you to explore the links at the top of my user page (version of 02:58, 4 August 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Of course, I'm determined to improve my language skills and the resources in your page would be a great boon for me. I could understand your constraints (time), but still I wish if you could spare some time for it. One more request; Would it burden you if I try to clarify my doubts regarding phrasing and grammar in this page? AshLey ^Msg 07:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have made some more revisions to the article, but in some places I was unsure of whether some words should be capitalized or not, so in one revision I left them as I found them. On this page, the first sentence of your first message uses the singular verb "is", but it should be the plural verb "are", in agreement with "improvements", the plural subject of the verb. In the second sentence of your second message here, "I could" has a meaning in the past tense and a meaning in the conditional mood, but you probably mean "I can" (present tense). The words "if you could" should be "that you could" (subjunctive mood). The semicolon after the word "request" should be a colon, because it introduces information that explains the word "request". Wikipedia:Manual of Style has a subsection Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Colons.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, my language issues are much more worse than what I thought! The most striking lesson for me was that of "conditional mood", and I'm much sure that I won't err in this case again. Also, I'll keep in mind the corrections that you provided, on the usage of "semicolon" and plural verbs. I went through the wiki-link subjunctive mood, and hence this doubt regarding the usage of future subjective mood: Whether it should be "I wish that you could spare" or "I wish that you spare"?

Corrections in Kerala: Sir, each change, you have made there, is a lesson for me. I'm not going to "leave you free", but to follow your contributions closely.:)Thankfully, AshLey ^Msg 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The adjective "worse" is the comparative form of the adjective "bad", so adding the adverb "more" is unnecessary and incorrect. Apparently you meant "much worse". Also, the expression "much sure" can be improved to "very sure". A "case" is an instance, and you probably meant "matter". Those words are defined at wikt:case and wikt:matter.

The expression "I wish that you could spare" emphasizes ability, and the expression "I wish that you would spare" emphasizes willingness, but both expressions are correct. Sometimes "would" does not emphasize willingness. The words "could" and "would" are defined at wikt:could and wikt:would.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think, there is nothing worse that "more worse"! Also, I got your last point regarding that expression; it is the past subjunctive of modal auxiliaries. I missed this explanation, when I read Subjunctive mood last time. AshLey ^Msg 12:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Billy the Kid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lens

CYJO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lens

Mirrors in Mesoamerican culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lens

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Don't hurry".

Some of your pattern-edits are breaking language. Thanks, Nemo 07:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The expression "breaking language" in your comment is linked to your reversion of my revision (the third revision in a count backward from your reversion). Your reversion restored the following sentence, which grammatically is incorrect.

• More recently a newer type of bad software has been emerging, less bloated (as in, meant for niche uses rather than general use) and more expensive.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

In your edit summary, you said "a definition is not a statement".

In correct grammar, the expression "as in" introduces a comparison, and not a definition.

• It is as sunny in Paris as in Bordeaux.
• The IPA symbol [θ] is to be pronounced as "th" in "three".
• If one pronounces "gh" as in "laugh", "o" as in "women", and "ti" as in "notion", then one pronounces "ghoti" as one pronounces "fish".

Often when a person misuses "as in" in "X, as in Y", the context indicates that the person means "X, that is (to say), Y" or "X, in the sense (of) Y" or even "X, in the sense associated with Y" (where X and Y are two different entities).

(Another expression often misused in definitions is the word "when".)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did you really mean that the expression "meant for niche uses rather than general use" is intended to be a definition of the expression "less bloated"? (Incidentally, a description is not a definition.) If so, then the grammatically incorrect sentence can be corrected in various ways.

• More recently a newer type of bad software has been emerging, less bloated (that is, meant for niche uses rather than general use) and more expensive.
• More recently a newer type of bad software has been emerging, less bloated (that is to say, meant for niche uses rather than general use) and more expensive.
• More recently a newer type of bad software has been emerging, less bloated (in the sense of being meant for niche uses rather than general use) and more expensive.

However, if it is intended to express merely an association, then the sentence can be corrected grammatically as follows.

• More recently a newer type of bad software has been emerging, less bloated (in the sense associated with niche uses rather than general use) and more expensive.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from Don't hurry to Grammatical correctness in definitions, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for putting the search box for the MOS on your user page. I used it to puzzle out the following, but if you have a moment I'd like you to check my sums.

• When not at the beginning of a sentence or in a header, young Earth creationism should not have either "young" or "creationism" capitalized as per WP:DOCTCAPS, but "Earth" should be capitalized due to the celestial bodies rule. The fact that the common abbreviation is YEC "makes no nevermind".

• No hyphen is needed between "young" and "Earth" as no confusion arises in its absence.

I would appreciate any comments or clarifications.

Best,

GaramondLethe 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that, except in the contexts that you mentioned, "young Earth creationism" should have both "young" and "creationism" uncapitalized because of WP:DOCTCAPS (version of 12:36, 7 August 2012), but "Earth" should be capitalized because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Celestial bodies (version of 09:43, 24 August 2012). I agree with the irrelevance of capital letters in "YEC", because of WP:CAPSACRS (version of 12:36, 7 August 2012).

I agree that no hyphen is needed between "young" and "Earth", because there is no problem of ambiguity. The noun phrase "old Earth creationism" could be seen as ambiguous—(1) "creationism involving the Earth being old" or (2) "an old creationism about the Earth"—but even it is unhyphenated, in a form consistent with that of "young Earth creationism", possibly because of convention in usage outside Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate you taking the time to make such a detailed response. I had missed WP:CAPSACRS and hadn't realized that there were multiple versions of the MOS (although that does make sense now that I think about it). Thank you for the gentle introduction to yet another aspect of Wikipedia that I didn't know existed. GaramondLethe 19:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "your edit made no sense".

I reverted your edit at Wikipedia:Article wizard per WP:ANAL. I realize that it's not a guideline, however you still might want to review it. If you would like to rollback my edit... Go ahead! Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here is a link to my revision of Wikipedia:Article wizard at 02:33, 2 September 2012, and here is a link to your reversion at 18:31, 7 September 2012.

Here is the relevant sentence before I revised it.

• If you have questions at any point, you can get help from other Wikipedians by going to the New Contributors' Help Page, the help desk, or by using the "live chat" links (top right) for live help.

Here is the relevant sentence after I revised it.

• If you have questions at any point, you can get help from other Wikipedians by going to the New Contributors' Help Page or the help desk, or by using the "live chat" links (top right) for live help.

The noun phrase "the New Contributors' Help Page" is a prepositional object, an object of the preposition "to". Likewise, the noun phrase "the help desk" is an object of the same instance of the preposition "to". Those two noun phrases are in a series and are joined by the coordinating conjunction "or". [In the expression "by using the 'live chat' links (top right) for live help", no noun phrase is an object of the same instance of the preposition "to".]

The expression "by going to the New Contributor's Help Page or the help desk" and the expression "by using the 'live chat' links (top right) for live help" are in a series and are joined by the coordinating conjunction "or". The sentence contains two series, and one series is within the other series.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the entire point. Look: Anal people care about little things as if they were big things. While an anal(logical) person is trying to find exactly the right phrase, everyone else has gone on to bigger and better things... What makes a person truly anal is a combination of attitude and the inability to let go of what everyone else thinks is "s***". — From said essay. Your edit is based on an obscure rule. That's it! And I do realize that you are correct, but like I said, that's not the point. Whatever. 'happie eddittttin' Just trying to get on your nerves with that last sentence. Lighthead ^þ 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I too missed that point when I read the post; Wavelength's response seemed right on point based on your section heading "your edit makes no sense."

I think you are the one who missed the point of the WP:ANAL essay. There's nothing in there that advises against doing what Wavelength did. And there's certainly nothing that suggests that when someone has made an edit out of analness that someone should revert that edit. Please notice that the passage you quote, which lightly implies that being anal is a poor lifestyle choice, is immediately followed by an equal number of words implying it's good.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I read the whole essay. I reverted my edit. :) Lighthead ^þ 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Correction: That is, I read the essay some time before I even brought it up here. Lighthead ^þ 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I also feel that that the subject heading of this message was poorly phrased. I realized it at the time, but I was regrettably too lazy to change it. :( Lighthead ^þ 04:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from your edit made no sense to A series within a series, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shital pati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

In shepherding Parable of the sunfish through WP:DYK I've found it necessary to use the {{rp|pagenumbers}} template for repeated references. However, I'm finding that a line break can occur between the word or sentence being cited and the citation+page reference. To the best of your knowledge, is there a non-breaking-space character available and does the WP:MOS permit/encourage/require its use in order to keep words and citations together?

Thanks,

GaramondLethe 20:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article Non-breaking space (version of 07:48, 22 August 2012) has a section "Encodings". You can try   or  . Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Non-breaking spaces (version of 05:12, 8 October 2012) (MOS:NBSP, WP:NBSP) says: "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! In reading the indicated material I realized I had asked the wrong question. What I was looking for was the equivalent of the tilde in LaTeX, which here is called "word joiner" and is represented by ⁠. That information is on the same page, so you managed to give me the information I needed despite the question I asked. Again, many thanks; you're making my learning curve a significantly less bumpy. GaramondLethe 21:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You probably meant "represented by ⁠". Those ampersands can be tricky, when we wish to display encodings.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Indeed I did. I just spent several minutes trying to figure out why that wasn't showing up as I was editing the {{rp}} documentation. Finally looked at the source code of Non-breaking space and discovered the & trick. Live and learn.... GaramondLethe 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "MOS".

Yes I probably removed 2 blank lines where they were not needed to remove white space. Feel free to put them back if they really are needed - but normally a question on my talk page would be sufficient to prod me to put them back instead of it looking like you were reverting something on a talk page. Yes I clicked the edit tab at the top instead of the edit link at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphen examples to add a second example. Which edit link is used is not important. But it is not appropriate to discuss individual editor conduct at the MOS talk page - only the MOS. Apteva (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is in reference to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Disruption versus personalization (version of 17:45, 18 October 2012). My interest in your revision was and is concentrated on the addition of the wikitable, partly because of its relation to your comments about hyphenation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Disruption versus personalization (version of 17:45, 18 October 2012). I used WT:MOS to mention your revision because I reasoned that possibly the editor who closed the discussion would make the reversion if that seemed to be appropriate.

I am revising the heading of this section from MOS to WT:MOS and closed discussion, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see my reply to User:NULL at 23:55, 18 October 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I can see that you added Category:Bones of the head and neck to the articles Incudomalleolar joint and Incudostapedial joint. I have removed this category again since both are joints and no other joints are mentioned in the category. Instead I started Category:Joints of the head and neck and added both the incudomalleolar and incudostapedial joint. I Just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobSteenberg (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Legoktm. Wavelength, thanks for creating List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I'm not sure a list like this is suitable for inclusion. It might be better represented as a category. Legoktm (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoktm (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 October 2012

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American non-fiction environmental writers.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Cordialissimi Saluti da Campora San Giovanni e gentilissima richiesta di aiuto e collaborazione per scambi di traduzione. grazie in anticipo di vero cuore".

Buonasera da Campora San Giovanni, Calabria,

le scrivo per salutarla e sapere come sta, oltre a questo le scrivo in italiano (chiedendole venia per non scriverla in inglese) perché ho un pessimo inglese, anche se ho fatto anni di studi scolastici, ma non praticandolo ne scrivendolo sempre ho alcune difficoltà ad esprimermi bene e in perfetto inglese. Le scrivo dicevo, per chiederle un suo aiuto (qualora lei volesse) per aiutarmi a tradurre e migliorare alcuni articoli su varie tematiche che tratto, diciamo quelle che attirano il mio interesse, quasi una tuttologia. Naturalmente la sua cortesia sarà sempre ricambiata con qualche traduzione in italiano e nei dialetti che conosco dell'italiano, dal mio nativo calabrese (con influenze siciliane e napoletane), al veneto, piemontese, lombardo, ligure genovese, un pochino di friulano e via discorrendo, parlo (o intendo) leggermente alcune lingue iberiche regionali come il mirandese, l'asturiano ed il catalano. insomma sono un asso nelle lingue neolatina, ma negato per la lingua base dell'economia, politica e rapporti internazionali, ovviamente nel comporre e nello scritto, ma da buon sud-italiano me la riesco a cavare all'occasione.

Dopo questa presentazione, come richiesta nella sua discussione in alto (ossia le sue regole di base della sua pagina di discussione), le chiedo sempre e comunque gentilmente se potrebbe dare una leggera allungata e miglioria all'articolo che le vado a mostrare: Radio Studio 54 Network, è una radio, anzi la Radio Ammiraglia della mia bella Calabria, ma in meno di 27 anni (dal 6 giugno 1985) ha già le trasmissioni che raggiungono in modulazione di frequenza nove province in cinque regioni del Sud Italia (Messina, Reggio Calabria, Vibo Valentia, Catanzaro, Crotone, Lecce, Potenza, Salerno). È anche ascoltata in molti paesi dalla comunità calabrese grazie al potentissimo e sempre aggiornatissimo streaming, le chiedo sempre e comunque gentilmente, la cortese traduzione e miglioria totale dell'articolo in inglese, prenda spunto dalla edizione madrelingua, o da quella francese o spagnola. Naturalmente sarò a disposizione come le ho scritto sopra per qualsiasi argomento voglia tradurre in italiano e nelle altre lingue da me elencate.

Certo di una sua certa e bella risposta, la ringrazio in anticipo di vero cuore, attendo sue notizie in merito. Le porgo amabilmente i miei cordialissimi saluti da Campora San Giovanni, con l'augurio che possa presto farci visita. Grazie mille ancora--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Grazie per il suo messaggio, e per l'opportunità di praticare la bella lingua italiana. Sto occupato facendo molte cose, ed anche faccio le decisioni secondo certe priorità. Ho trovato che la maggioranza degli articoli elencati a Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English sono di poco interesse per me. Spero viaggiare all'Italia alcun giorno, ma quell'avvenimento mi sembra lontano nel corso di tempo.

Ho fatto alcuni cambi all'articolo "Radio Studio 54 Network". La sua lunghezza è quasi uguale a quella della versione italiana e non so come allungarlo.

C'è un articolo "Languages of Italy" e c'è una versione italiana, "it:Lingue parlate in Italia". Esiste un elenco di traduttori a Wikipedia:Translators available. Ecco due collegamenti esterni per imparare la lingua inglese.

• English For Italians | Inglese per Italiani - Carmelo Mangano’s Blog
• Corso di inglese on line - ABA English

—Wavelength (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Questi due collegamenti possono essere utili.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC) and 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Correzione: Questi due collegamenti possono essere utili.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Buona Domenica Pomeriggio da Campora San Giovanni, la scrivo per salutarla, ringraziarla per le sue contribuzioni, mi scuso per il ritardo nel risponderle ma sono stato leggermente impegnato nella vita reale, oltre a questo la ringrazio vivissimamente per le correzioni e le migliorie sui due articoletti. Le chiedo sempre e comunque gentilemente se può dare una miglioria all'articolo della radio nelle sezioni "Incipit" e "History", ossia una bella traduzione dall'italiano, spagnolo o dal francese che sono le migliori finora. Poi io le tradurrò con tutto il cuore un articolo di suo particolare interesse nei dialetti italiani presenti su Wikipedia, dal mio nativo calabrese ad altre del nord Italia, ho un bel mucchio di dizionarietti e libriccini vari nella mia bibliotechina e possono fare al caso nostro. le faccio i miei migliorissimi complimenti ed elogi per il suo bellissimo italiano, lo scrive alla perfezione. Certo di una sua certa e bella risposta in merito ed un suo aiuto, la ringrazio vivissimamente per la grandissima disponibilità ed il tempo che mi ha messo a sua disposizione, spero anche di porterle ricambiare la cortesia ricevuta. Grazie Mille--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Purtroppo, desidero non passare più di tempo migliorando od aumentando o traducendo l'articolo "Radio Studio 54 Network".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of professional editors who have edited Wikipedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional editors who have edited Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Thank you".

Thank you for your recent helpful edits to the new article I've created, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. We'd love for you to join WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech if you're interested in the subject matter. :) Have a great day! — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from Thank you to Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maiden flight dates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiden flight dates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Note".

I noticed a lot of wikiprojects are missing from Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject. Why is that? Pass a Method talk 13:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I included those that I considered to be the most important ones existing when I included them, but I am willing to expand the list.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would be really grateful if you could expand the list.:) Pass a Method talk 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am in the process of preparing entries to be added.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

In your latest entries here you added several entries of a similar scope, for example multiple military-related and multiple philosophy-related. I was actually hoping for more diverse entries. Pass a Method talk 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

My source is Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject. I am unable to provide more diversity than what is in that category.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Does that category have a glitch or something? When i press "previous" it shows a blank page, when i press a letter before T it just stays still without redirecting. Pass a Method talk 00:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The page does not have a glitch. It is the first of three pages, so the phrase "previous 200" is not a link. The first entry is "Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Popular pages", indexed under "T", so there is no entry before "T". The vast majority of entries have names beginning with "Wikipedia:WikiProject", so they are indexed under "W" for "WikiProject", regardless of the first letter of the next word in the name of any of those entries.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

At this time, Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject includes 442 pages, and Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject (version of 17:58, 15 November 2012) includes 441 of them, if I am not mistaken. I omitted Wikipedia:WikiProject Industrial design/Popular pages bot, because it appears to be a duplicate of Wikipedia:WikiProject Industrial design/Popular pages.

It was with some reluctance that I added Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Popular pages and Wikipedia:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians' notice board/Popular page and Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Popular pages, because their names do not conform to the usual pattern, and the third one confuses the meaning of the word "wiki". (See the article "Wiki" and the March 2012 discussion archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Wikipedia, a wiki.) Also, I had been avoiding the addition of some pages because of the challenge of choosing category information.

I am revising the heading of this section from Note to WP:POPT—missing entries, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why wikiproject LGBT is not listed? Pass a Method talk 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It was listed in the first version, and it has never been removed.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why is wikiproject ponography not listed? Pass a Method talk 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

At this time, it has no list of popular pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationships is another WikiProject without a list of popular pages. A plague to families is a plague to societies.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Decadal hyphen recommendation?".

Good morning.

I would like to ask for guidance on hyphen use in constructions such as "mid-1950s" versus "mid 1950s". I see WP:SEASON prefers "mid-spring" but WP:DECADE is silent. WP:HOWEVERPUNC lists "mid-sentence" (albeit in dicta). Common use on wikipedia appears to favor the hyphen, but not universally. Your thoughts?

Many thanks,

GaramondLethe 18:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The element "mid-" is a prefix, so it should be joined to the next element, in this case with a hyphen.

• The Grammar Logs -- Number Three Hundred, Sixty-Four, second question
• http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/images/ch07_tab01.pdf, category 4
• Stylebook of "Early American Life", section "Prefixes"
• 7 Types of Hyphenation That May Seem Wrong But Aren’t, section 6: "Prefixes"

(This source makes the following comment.

• Consistency would call for referring to "the middle 1970s" or "the middle of the century," but mid- has replaced this usage.

However, now that I am aware of that alternative, I have no inhibitions against using "the middle 1970s".)

• Hyphens & Dashes | Middlebury: "Hyphens": "With Prefixes & Suffixes"
• PopMatters | Style Guide, section 4: "Dates"
• User:Noetica/Archive4#Complications with ly

—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've spent a happy hour reviewing the citations you provided. Would you consider adding this to your adverbs and hyphens page (with the cites included)? And may I reproduce this on my own user page? You've pointed me to several resources that I didn't know existed, and I plan on getting a lot of use out them.

Many, many thanks.

GaramondLethe 04:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your expression of appreciation. The information on that page about adverbs and hyphens is closely related to decisions about adjectives modified by adverbs ending with the suffix "ly". This discussion about hyphens after the prefix "mid" is not related closely enough to be added to that page.

My seventh link above is already listed on that page, and I listed it here because of overlapping matters in reiterated parts 3 and 4, involving early·to·mid·November and an early·to·mid·19th·century event, where I used an interpunct to represent an indeterminate or unspecified character which is either a space or a hyphen.

I am not sure exactly how this discussion would be reproduced on your user page, but I have no objection to an exact copy, with a clear indication of its origin, User talk:Wavelength#Decadal hyphen recommendation, destined to be archived at User talk:Wavelength/Archive 5#Decadal hyphen recommendation.

I am revising the heading of this section from Decadal hyphen recommendation? to Decadal hyphen recommendation, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings), and MOS:HEAD, point 6 ("Headings should not contain questions.").

—Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Kerala".

The article has been nominated for good article review. With regards AshLey ^Msg 08:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this notification. These links are for convenient reference.

• User talk:Wavelength#Kerala (August 2012) = #Kerala (destined to be archived with this section, at User talk:Wavelength/Archive 5#Kerala)
• User talk:Ashley thomas80/Archive 1#Pages related to Kerala and India (August 2012)
• Kerala: Revision history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am revising the heading of this section from Kerala to Kerala: good article nomination, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings), and MOS:HEAD, point 3 ("Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous.").

—Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Cordiali Saluti da Campora San Giovanni e gentile richiesta di rilettura e miglioria per gli articoli Catona e Radio Studio 54 Network grazie in anticipo di vero cuore".

Buonasera e Buon Weekend dalla Calabria,

la scrivo per salutarla e sapere come sta, oltre a questo per augurarle un buon weekend qualora non ci sentissimo prima. Le scrivo anche per chiederle la cortesia di spendere 4 minuti del suo tempo per la rilettura e la miglioria di stile, morfologia e sintassi per quanto riguarda i due articoli che ho tradotto e migliorato qualche settimana fa da me medesimo, mi sono messo di mezzo impegno e su suo suggerimento qualcosa ho fatto (sperando non in un pastrocchio), con la cortese la ringrazio in anticipo di vero cuore per quello che ha fatto, fa e farà per me. Cordialissimi Saluti dalla Calabria--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from Cordiali Saluti da Campora San Giovanni e gentile richiesta di rilettura e miglioria per gli articoli Catona e Radio Studio 54 Network grazie in anticipo di vero cuore to "Catona" e "Radio Studio 54 Network", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

These links are useful to me.

• List of ISO 639-1 codes
• http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Lodewijk%20Vadacchino
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Lodewijk%20Vadacchino
• http://toolserver.org/%7Eluxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Lodewijk+Vadacchino
• Germanic languages
  • en—English language—User contributions for Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • de—German language—Benutzerbeiträge von „Lodewijk Vadacchino“ – Wikipedia
  • nl—Dutch language—Bijdragen van Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • da—Danish language—Brugerbidrag for Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi
  • fo—Faroese language—Brúkara íkøst fyri Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • fy—West Frisian language—Bydragen fan Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedy
  • is—Icelandic language–Framlög notanda Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia, frjálsa alfræðiritið
  • lb—Luxemburgish language—Kontributioune vum Lodewijk Vadacchino – Wikipedia
  • no—Norwegian language—Brukerbidrag av Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • sv—Swedish language—Bidrag av Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia

• Romanic languages
  • it—Italian language—Contributi di Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • fr—French language—Liste des contributions de l'utilisateur Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipédia
  • es—Spanish language—Contribuciones del usuario Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
  • pt—Portuguese language—Contribuições do(a) usuário(a) Lodewijk Vadacchino – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre
  • ro—Romanian language—Contribuțiile utilizatorului Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • an—Aragonese language—Contribucions de l'usuario Lodewijk Vadacchino - Biquipedia, a enciclopedia libr
  • ca—Catalan language—Contribucions de l'usuari Lodewijk Vadacchino - Viquipèdia
  • co—Corsican language—User contributions for Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • gl—Galician language—Contribucións de Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia, a enciclopedia libre
  • oc—Occitan language—Contribucions de l'usuari Lodewijk Vadacchino - Viquipèdia
  • rm—Romansh language—Contribuziuns d'utilisader da Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • sc—Sardinian language—Contributziones de Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • wa—Walloon language—Djivêye des ovraedjes di l' uzeu Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia

• Slavic languages
  • ru—Russian language—Вклад участника Lodewijk Vadacchino — Википедия
  • uk—Ukrainian language–Внесок користувача Lodewijk Vadacchino — Вікіпедія
  • be—Belarusian language—Уклад удзельніка Lodewijk Vadacchino — Вікіпедыя
  • pl—Polish language—Wkład użytkownika Lodewijk Vadacchino – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
  • cs—Czech language—Příspěvky uživatele Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedie
  • sk—Slovak language—Príspevky redaktora Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipédia
  • sl—Slovene language—Prispevki uporabnika Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija
  • hr—Croatian language–Suradnički doprinosi za Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedija
  • sr—Serbian language–Доприноси корисника Lodewijk Vadacchino – Википедија
  • bs—Bosnian language—Doprinosi korisnika Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • mk—Macedonian language—Придонеси на корисникот Lodewijk Vadacchino - Википедија
  • bg—Bulgarian language_Потребителски приноси за Lodewijk Vadacchino — Уикипедия

• Baltic languages
  • lv—Latvian language—Lietotāja Lodewijk Vadacchino devums - Vikipēdija
  • lt—Lithuanian language—Lodewijk Vadacchino naudotojo indėlis – Vikipedija

• Celtic languages
  • ga—Irish language—Dréachtaí úsáideora do Lodewijk Vadacchino - Vicipéid
  • cy—Welsh language—Cyfraniadau'r defnyddiwr am Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wicipedia
  • br—Breton language—Degasadennoù an implijer evit Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia

• Finno-Ugric languages
  • fi—Finnish language—User contributions for Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia
  • hu—Hungarian language—Lodewijk Vadacchino közreműködései - Wikipédia
  • tr—Turkish language—Lodewijk Vadacchino için kullanıcı katkıları - Vikipedi

• Constructed languages
  • eo—Esperanto—Kontribuoj de uzanto Lodewijk Vadacchino - Vikipedio
  • io—Ido—Uzanto-kontributadi di Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedio
  • vo—Volapük—Gebanakeblünots pro Lodewijk Vadacchino - Vükiped

• Other languages
  • el—Greek language—Συνεισφορά χρήστη Lodewijk Vadacchino - Βικιπαίδεια
  • et—Estonian language—Kasutaja Lodewijk Vadacchino kaastöö - Vikipeedia, vaba entsüklopeedia
  • eu—Basque language—Lodewijk Vadacchino lankidearen ekarpenak - Wikipedia, entziklopedia askea.
  • hy—Armenian language—Lodewijk Vadacchino մասնակցի ներդրումը - Վիքիպեդիա՝ ազատ հանրագիտարան
  • ka—Georgian language—წვლილის ჟურნალი მომხმარებლისთვის Lodewijk Vadacchino - ვიკიპედია
  • la—Latin—Conlationes usoris Lodewijk Vadacchino - Vicipaedia
  • mt—Maltese languageKontribuzzjonijiet tal-utent Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedija
  • sq—Albanian language—Kontributet e përdoruesit për Lodewijk Vadacchino - Wikipedia

—Wavelength (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC) and 01:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC) and 03:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC) and 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "timeline".

-- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

That discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 23#Timeline of farthest detected object.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from timeline to Timeline of farthest detected object, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this invitation.—Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wind River Tribal College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The link was disambiguated at 17:14, 21 December 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey wave, see also sections are not really recommended per WP:MEDMOS. If a topic is truely related one should be able to combine it into the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; I found the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Standard appendices (version of 16:37, 24 October 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jamal Khashoggi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Afghanistan War

List of resolutions at the sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to War in Afghanistan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Good call".

Your last edit on Talk:Cyprus Observer was a good call. --The long road homw (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cyprus#Cyprus Observer (version of 00:01, 10 January 2013; version of 19:57, 21 February 2013).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from Good call to Cyprus Observer, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for showing the link to open directory. Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. (I corrected the placement of your message.)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American non-fiction environmental writers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Thanks".

Just saw you'd corrected an article I put in a while ago. I thought at first it might be vandalism, but instead I learned something new! 60.248.2.163 (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You might be referring to my revision of "The Fourth Wall (novel)" at 04:13, 12 December 2012. Anyway, you are welcome.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from Thanks to The Fourth Wall (novel), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thread retitled from "Hey".

Your automatic corrections do not take into account the verb phrase "check in".—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

My corrections are not automatic, and I do consider the verb phrase "check in" and also the verb phrase "check into".

• http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/check-into
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/check+into
• http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/check+into

—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard of "to check into".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article "Foursquare" had one instance of "checked into" (in the last paragraph of the section "Privacy") in the version immediately before my revision at 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am revising the heading of this section from Hey to Changing "in to" to "into", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a convenience to all visitors to this page, here is an active link to http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/into.html, which is inactive in my edit summaries.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am revising that statement by applying use–mention distinction. As a convenience to all visitors to this page, here is a clickable link (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/into.html) to the web address cited in my edit summaries.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

In choosing between "in to" (adverb and preposition) and "into" (preposition), I consider whether the next expression is a noun or noun phrase, or a verb or verb phrase.

• "They check into the hotel. They check in to spend the night."
• "We log into the website. We log in to edit articles."
• "They opt into a savings plan. They opt in to save money."
• "We sign into our e-mail account. We sign in to read e-mail messages."
• "They tune into the radio program. They tune in to hear the news."

Those examples contain verbs used intransively, but a verb can be used transitively, with its direct object placed

either after the adverb phrase introduced by the prepositional phrase "into", ^[1]

or before the verb in the form of a relative pronoun,

or before the verb in the form of an interrogative pronoun.

• "We will check into the hotel all this luggage. This is the luggage that we will check into the hotel. What will we check into the hotel?"

Similar examples can be composed

for third-person singular present indicative active verbs ending in "s",

for past tense verbs and past participles (ending in "ed" for regular verbs),

and for present participles ending in "ing".

• "She opts into a savings plan. She opts in to save money."
• "He opted into a savings plan. He opted in to save money."
• "She is opting into a savings plan. She is opting in to save money."

The past participle can be used adjectivally.

• "Rebars are built into the structure. Rebars are built in to provide reinforcement."

The verb "put" deserves special attention, because it is one of a number of verbs having identical forms for infinitive and for past tense and for past participle, and because of its (intransitive) nautical sense in "to put out" (wikt:put out: "to sail away, to depart") and "to put in" ("to arrive" [by sailing]).

• "The ships put into the port each week. The ships put in to unload cargo."
• "The ship put into Capetown yesterday. The ship put in to be serviced for a few days."
• "The ship has put into many ports. The ship has put in to receive new passengers."
• "The ship is putting into Capetown. The ship is putting in to be refueled."

(The present participle "putting" is formed also from the golfing term "putt".)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Section 61 (#Verbs followed by "into") summarizes my reasoning on the use of "log into" and similar expressions.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wavelength,

Sorry to quibble, but I'm pretty sure edits like this one are incorrect. As I understand it, "in" and "to" can't be merged in "log in to", because the thing you're doing is "logging in", not "logging". So whereas a captain might write a log into a book, we would log in to a website. I couldn't find a reliable source to back me up in a quick search, but googling "log in to" "log into" grammar shows this seems to be consensus in grammar forums and the like.

I wouldn't normally dispute something so small, but as you're making related edits on mass, it seemed worth bringing up.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I performed a Web search with those search terms, and from that search I found information on these four pages.

• There are differing viewpoints at http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19349.
• There are differing viewpoints at http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/into-vs-in-to/.
• The form "log in to" is recommended at http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_login_to_or_log_into.
• The form "log into" is recommended at http://www.englishforums.com/English/LogInIntoIntoOnto/vzdxc/post.htm.

I performed a meta-search at http://www.onelook.com/?w=log&ls=a, and from that search I found the following information.

• The form "log in to" is used at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/log?r=66.
• The past participial form "logged in to" is used at http://www.netlingo.com/dictionary/l.php.
• (The form "log on to" is used at http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/log.)

I performed a Web search for "log into", and from that search I found the form "log into" on the following pages.

• http://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/edu/magento/getting-started-tutorial/how-to-log-into-magento-admin-panel
• http://support.hostgator.com/articles/webhost-manager-whm/how-do-i-log-into-the-web-host-manager-whm
• http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Why-can-t-I-log-into-my-account
• http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-log-into-spotify.html
• http://www.facebook.com/help/185285184853471/
• http://www.webhostinghub.com/support/edu/cpanel/101-getting-started/how-to-login-to-cpanel
• https://support.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/7879-how-do-i-log-into-desk-com-
• http://wordpress.org/support/topic/how-to-log-into-my-self-hosted-wordpress-site
• http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/BlackBerry-Bold/wont-let-me-log-into-blackberry-ID/td-p/1582739
• http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/LlzV8GSCiB4
• http://lifehacker.com/5834612/how-to-log-into-your-computer-automatically
• http://help.agilebits.com/1Password_touch/log_into_sites.html

Google reported 25,700,000 results for "log into", and 4,130,000,000 results for "log in to", the ratio being about 1 to 160, but I consider the latter version to be contrary to logic.

My reasoning can be pictured in several ways. We can use the analogy of an object with several layers (for example, a Matrioshka doll or the Earth or an onion or an egg). If you bite into an apple, you might bite in to the core without biting into the core. If a researcher sends a signal into the Earth, it might be sent in to the mantle without being sent into the mantle. That signal might be reflected out from the mantle without being reflected out of the mantle. In this context, the word "to" and the word "from" are reciprocal antonyms, and the word "into" and the phrase "out of" are reciprocal antonyms. If we speak of "logging out of" an account, then the opposite would be "logging into" an account. (The opposite of "logging in to" an account would be "logging out from" an account.) Although the technical usage with the word "log" involves a figurative meaning, I consider the adoption of a parallel pattern to be logical.

The sense of a verb phrase that includes "in" can vary according to its context.

• A Brazilian logger who logs into the Amazon rainforest is logging but not logging in. A computer user who logs into an electronic account is logging in but not logging. The context in each case indicates the sense.
• When a caterpillar turns into a butterfly or a moth, it is not turning in and not necessarily turning. When a motor vehicle turns into a parking lot, that vehicle is not only turning but also turning in. The context in each case indicates the sense.
• A newlywed bride might break into song, but she is neither breaking nor breaking in. An item made of fine porcelain might break into many pieces, breaking but not breaking in. The context in each case indicates the sense.

Some historical information about the word "log" is at http://www.word-detective.com/021605.html#log and at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=log&searchmode=none. The use of the word "log" for the records of a ship appears to be no more than a few centuries old.

Although I acknowledge the reality of contextual dependence for interpreting some expressions, I prefer that expressions be contextually independent as much as possible. With that in mind, I suggest what I believe to be better expressions than "logging in" and "logging out". Those expressions are "unlocking" and "locking" (an electronic account), and it is not too late for people to use them. Mechanical locks for securing physical possessions have been used for millennia.

I have examined the evidence and have reasoned on the matter, and I believe that, in making corrections en masse, one is correct in changing "in to" versions to "log into", "logs into", logged into", and "logging into".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the detailed reply. You've convinced me there's a logical case for "log in to".

(Minor tangent – Google hits counts for multi-word phrases are nothing but lies from Google. I googled "logs in to" and saw the >4M hit count, yet when I tried scrolling through the pages, Google ran out after 611 results. Bizarrely, repeating the search without certain pages omitted led to an even lower count of 491 pages.)

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I use "log in to" before a verb or verb phrase, and "log into" before a noun or noun phrase. I am simultaneously posting more details about the distinction, above this subsection. My Google search for inconsistent google search results reported 2,260,000 results.

I am revising the heading of this section from Log in to to Forms "log in to" and "log into", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

WARNING: The next post contains a contracted profanity. (Wiktionary has a definition of it.) Reader discretion is advised.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GorBlimey Prof. an' ere woz me thinking as 'ow I 'ad been speaking the Queen's own English all them years!
Apologies for the humour(?) I appreciate that I am probably out of my depth on this page, however I am curious. I note that you use the term 'verb phrase', but avoid the term 'phrasal verb', I know that some language experts dislike the term, though I don't understand why. As a teacher of English as a foreign language, it is an invaluable term, for whilst many phrasal verbs are simply the metaphorical use of ordinary verbs (eg look into = investigate), many others cannot be understood from their components (including check in). I therefore don't see why check in to a hotel is any less clear than check into a hotel, (both seem equally acceptable to me since the former is adding a preposition to a phrasal verb, not to a verb+adverb form). However, Dive into rescue a drowning man, is clearly wrong, since it is misleading. The website you point to (brians/errors), does not give any reasons for 'in to' being wrong, beyond a pronunciation clue (however, I have no difficulty in saying 'check in to' or 'log in to' etc. as distinct words). Is it possible to say WHY in+to is wrong, since it does not introduce any ambiguity?

Incidentally, logging into an internet account is not 'unlocking' it, unless one takes 'unlocking' to mean 'unlocking, entering and then re-locking behind oneself'. I think therefore that unlocking would be LESS clear, especially since it does have a distinct meaning of locking/unlocking a document, web-page etc..Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC) .... Afterthought, it occurs to me that the older term in the UK for 'check in', is 'sign in' , therefore it would not be unusual when arriving at a hotel, to be asked to 'sign in (to the hotel register)' ... one could not meaningfully 'sign into the hotel register' (unless one were waving one's pen around in the approximate direction of the outside of the register) ... does this not illustrate that there cannot be a hard and fast rule about the appropriateness of in to/into ?Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/check+into, "check into" means "to check in at", as it does in "check into a hotel". According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/check+in, "check in" means "to register at a hotel" and "to report one's presence or arrival", as it does in "check in at a convention". Substituting "register" for "check in" in the form with "in to" produces "register to a hotel", which is incorrect.

If ambiguity were the sole basis for incorrectness, then copy-editing would be impossible (without assistance from the original author[s]). Often the context provides enough information for a reasonable interpretation, but another instance of the same error might not be clarified sufficiently by its context. (That is why "You know what I mean, even if I did not say it right" can be answered by "I know what you probably mean this time, but I can not be sure about the next time.")

The expression "signing into a hotel" is used at http://www.india-tour-guide.co.uk/India-General.html, although "it's" is mistakenly used instead of "its" (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html). The expression "checking into a hotel" is used at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoxRRdusTk (1:07), although a hyphen is missing from the compound adjective "24-hour". (See WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 8.)

—Wavelength (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am still not convinced of the universal incorrectness of the in to form,though clearly there are many examples on this page where it would be incorrect, as it would be misleading. I know from experience that learning correct/standard use of prepositions is extremely difficult for non-native speakers, partly because their use is often irrational or counter-intuitive (check in with or check in at a hotel would make more sense if the meaning is register one's presence). Thanks for replying, even if I'm not wholly convinced.Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Section 61 (#Verbs followed by "into") summarizes my reasoning on the use of "log into" and similar expressions.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! This message is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

–pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this invitation.—Wavelength (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed an edit of yours on Wi-Fi. "Log into" doesn't make much sense.

You made the same edit a while ago and it was reverted- [[1]] Bhny (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I missed the long discussion above. Anyway I find the edit jarring and google seems to support "log in to" 15 to 1. I don't want to argue grammar, so I'll leave it up to you Bhny (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Section 61 (#Verbs followed by "into") summarizes my reasoning on the use of "log into" and similar expressions.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wavelength, I've initiated a peer review request for the List of historic schools of forestry article, and would appreciate your input on ways that it can be improved. Ultimately, I would like to nominate it for Featured List status. Please add any comments or suggestions at this link. Thank you & Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added my comments at 15:45, 23 April 2013.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wavelength, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I see there have been two comments above about "Log in to a computer" vs. "Log into a computer". I have to say that I prefer the former. "Log in" is a phrasal verb - so you can say "I can't log in", or "After you log in, run xyz". To me, this is a different case from the common "into/in to" error that you are doing such a good job of correcting. However I am not sure enough (or concerned enough) to revert your changes. A couple of different cases where I did revert your changes were to do with ships - "put in at <a port>" is much more common usage than "put in to <a port>" or "put into <a port>"). Regards Mcewan (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment about "put in at <a port>". I am now planning to use that form instead of "put into <a port>". I had some difficulty in finding "put in" listed in an online nautical dictionary, but my Google searches for "we put in at" and "they put in at" reported some results, the most prominently listed ones being web pages with Bible passages.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC) and 21:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the compliment. At this moment, I have checked 10,000 of about 30,000 search results. I made 308 edits to articles in the ninth set of 1,000 (numbered 8,001 to 9,000), according to the number of edits shown in "preferences" beforehand (71,198) and the number shown afterward (71,506). For a few articles, I made more than one edit, and for many edits, I made more than one correction. I made no other types of edits during that time. When I say "checked", this takes into account that sometimes the search snippet is enough to inform me that I do not need to open the article page. Also, I have generally skipped articles about topics in the field of entertainment.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC) and 03:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC) and 03:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this moment, I have checked 15,000 of about 30,000 search results for " in to ", with a general intermingling of topics and a general intermingling of the particular words preceding and of the particular words following that character string. I have decided to suspend that series of search results, at least for now, and to focus on specific words used in combination with " in to ", searching for instances requiring into, for example, translate or any of its derivatives preceding " in to ", and existence following " in to ". Text is translated into another language. Things are brought into existence.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is a link to a record of 308 consecutive edits in an extended editing session of 195 minutes from 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC) to 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC).Reply

—Wavelength (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have checked 22,500 search results.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am posting this message primarily for my own reference.

(1) I have checked the search results for these words preceding "in to".

• enter, entered, entering, enters; entrance, entry
• induct, recruit, sworn, vote, elect, invite, usher, muster
• assimilate, introduce, absorb, accept, invest
• investigate, enquiry, inquiry, research, look, delve, insight
• translate, convert, change, transform, morph, form, divert, shape, distort
• escalate, intensify, strengthen, expand, grow, evolve, develop
• weaken, shrink, contract, diminish
• combine, amalgamate, incorporate, consolidate, unite, factor, integrate
• split, divide, subdivide, division, separate, partition, segregate
• settle, emigrate, immigrate, fit, flood, flow, pour, blend, drain, trickle

(2) I have checked the search results for these words following "in to".

• consideration, account, effect, service, sight, office
• debt, liquidation, doubt, question
• being, existence, place, position, line
• production, business, operation, use, practice, action
• asylum, exile, disuse, obscurity, decline, disrepair
• law, force, power, government, university, college

(3) These articles provide information about sentence structure, and use diagrams.

• Parse tree (version of 00:43, 22 May 2013)
• Sentence diagram (version of 22:39, 9 April 2013)
• Phrase structure grammar (version of 02:46, 7 March 2013)
• Terminal and non-terminal functions (version of 02:55, 9 January 2013)
• Dependency grammar (version of 05:25, 20 March 2013)

(4) I am making a note of these verbs as candidates for special attention in the future.

• log, sign, opt, buy, check
• built, break, plug, fit, lock, drop, move, put, pull, push, swap, trade, weigh
• tune, clue, call, dial, mail, write, zone, home, zoom
• drive, sit, walk, run
• lead, tie, fade, phase

—Wavelength (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Section 61 (#Verbs followed by "into") summarizes my reasoning on the use of "log into" and similar expressions.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have removed the "Suggest a question" option for the time being, thinking it may be a waste of everybody's time if there is no support for the survey. I'll restore it if the community decides to go with the survey. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this notification. [I edited a sub-subpage at 17:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC).]

—Wavelength (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not every instance of "in to" is wrong, which you should have noticed from the page you link to in your edit summaries. If you will not or cannot differentiate between instances where "in" is used as part of the verb and where it is not, you should stop making this mass edit. -Rrius (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know that not every instance of "in to" is wrong (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/into.html), and I do differentiate between the adverb "in" in phrasal verbs (such as "was sworn in") and the preposition "into" before a prepositional object (as in "was sworn into office").

For example, the article "Oath of office of the President of the United States" (version of 01:33, 16 April 2013) says "William R. King is the only executive official sworn into office on foreign soil." (I have not edited that article.)

The expression "sworn into office" is used on these external pages.

• President's Swearing-In Ceremony | Inauguration of the President
• Committee History | Inauguration of the President

Those are only two of many pages that I found from a World Wide Web search for sworn into office site:.gov.

There have been many instances where I have seen "in to" and I have not changed it to "into", but they are not shown in the record of my contributions.

Additional details are in a previous section (#Changing "in to" to "into").

—Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fowler's Modern English Usage is clear: write 'in to' if the two words are used in different senses, hence "we went into the Opera House" but "we went in to the opera" because the second refers to the performance, not the building. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Section 61 (#Verbs followed by "into") summarizes my reasoning on the use of "log into" and similar expressions.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur MacNalty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages KCB and FRCP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this moment, I have edited that article exactly two times: at 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC) and at 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC). I have not added to that page any link(s).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hunting through the long grass to find all those "into" mistakes must be hard work!

Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It is certainly time-consuming. I have been searching for them since March 28, and there are still more to be found and corrected. I estimate that almost 7,500 (almost 10% of my edits) have been those corrections. (Common Errors in English Usage mentions many other mistakes.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC) and 22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you have been changing "way back" to "away back". In my humble opinion this is incorrect, but it would probably be better to revisit the pages concerned and delete the phrase altogether. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the formal register appropriate for an encyclopedia, the English word "way" is a noun. Adverbial senses are classified as slang or informal. This is acknowledged by Wiktionary at wikt:way#Adverb (version of 05:09, 26 May 2013). I have provided in my edit summaries direct links to Wiktionary for the convenience of other editors. You can check other dictionaries via this link: http://www.onelook.com/?w=way&ls=a.

The usage is discussed at http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/03/way-down-yonder-in-etymology.html and http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38618/are-way-better-and-way-more-correct.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the phrase from "Codecraft" and from "Ahlawi derby". I generally prefer to concentrate on correcting English, and to avoid fuzzy decisions about such things as the age of an event sufficient for the qualifier "away back". I have checked 3,500 search results for "way back".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the case where I first spotted this - this edit - your alteration to "... had closed away back on 1 July 1916 ..." changes a sentence which contains slang into one which is pretty much meaningless. I have altered it so that the original intent is restored. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that revision and for this notification.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the phrase altogether from Emami where it was already tagged as inappropriate, and I agree with Redrose about the effect of your edit. – Fayenatic London 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that revision and for this notification.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you show any examples where changing "way back" to "away back" was a clear improvement, and it's better to keep "away back" than to delete both words? – Fayenatic London 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your question has two parts. Probably most, if not all, of my changes from "way back" to "away back" were clear improvements. On the other hand, I do not know any examples where keeping "away back" is better than deleting both words, although there is little or no benefit in deleting them. Anyone who wishes to delete them is welcome to do so, but I do not wish to spend time in doing so. Here is a link to a record of those changes.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please be more careful when making edits like this to ensure that the context isn't a direct quote, as in this edit. I've undone that change. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In almost every instance, I searched in the edit window for the text that I was thinking of changing, without searching for it in the displayed version of the article. My practice has been to search for quotation marks near the character string, and for tags such as "blockquote" and "cquote". There have been many instances where I have left the text unchanged because I recognized that it was in a quotation. In this instance, the quoted text was indented by the use of a colon, and I missed that clue. Thank you for undoing that change, and for alerting me to the need to be more careful.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wavelength. I invite you to feedback on my views in Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, I'm encouraging all involved since January to do so. Adam37 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for inviting me to provide feedback. I hope to consider your views soon, but I have to prioritize my activities.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=563858723 you tampered with a comment of user: Mindmatrix. Repair you damage now, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here are links to four consecutive revisions, at 18:33, 11 July 2013, and 19:12, 11 July 2013, and 19:37, 11 July 2013, and 19:51, 11 July 2013.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rio Grande de la Costa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plaza Bolivar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is an exercise in thinking outside the box. Or perhaps it's an exercise in being on a certain wave length.

We both know how List 1 is organised. But how is List 2 organised? I can assure you it isn't random.

List 1

• Baroque architecture
• Byzantine architecture
• Early Christian art and architecture
• Gothic architecture
• List of regional characteristics of European cathedral architecture
• Renaissance architecture
• Romanesque architecture
• Victorian architecture

List 2

• Early Christian art and architecture
• Byzantine architecture
• Romanesque architecture
• Gothic architecture
• Renaissance architecture
• Baroque architecture
• Victorian architecture
• List of regional characteristics of European cathedral architecture

I've reverted to List 2. I think I'll remove the distracting List of regional characteristics of European cathedral architecture to another grouping.

Amandajm (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this notification. I have revised the subheading for clarity.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overthinking syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I revised the link at 00:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have little interest in comic book writers and artists, and no great preference in the choice of a portrait photograph. If I have edited one or more articles in this field, then it was likely from a search for an error in the English language (for example, in spelling or grammar or punctuation), or from a link on the Main Page.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

They reverted your edit to the march article because the Youtube video was copyvio. This version will be okay if you want to try and add it back. It is from the CBC that had publishing rights.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message. I edited "March Against Monsanto" at 22:43, 14 August 2013, but that revision was reverted at 15:20, 15 August 2013. Afterward, my revision of the same article at 15:34, 15 August 2013 was reverted at 15:39, 15 August 2013.

I have considered your suggestion, and I have instead edited "Genetically modified organism" at 22:07, 15 August 2013.

–Wavelength (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is also Genetically modified food controversies and Genetically modified food. My soundcard is acting up so I can't hear what she says. Many of these articles are in tight battles from those sympathetic to business and government and those that are trying to expand our readers' knowledge. I have given up on many of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for those two suggestions also. A transcript might be available. People differ on what is a reliable source. See Galatians 6:9.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geprüfte Sicherheit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Product safety]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supermom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I've noticed a couple times you've linked to The Watchtower Library Online. It is a very helpful resource. Just wondering if you are familiar with the witnesses in real life, or perhaps WOL is a tool in your reference desk toolbox. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am. Yes, it is. Thank you for your interest.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because the articles in the Watchtower Online Library are well-prepared, I often find it convenient to provide a link to an article or to a list of links from which a reader may choose. However, I try to avoid doing so too often, and sometimes linking to one or more Biblical passages is adequate for answering a question. Recently, I have seen at WP:RD more than the usual number of questions with connections to the Bible, so I have linked to WOL more than I have usually done in the past. Out of respect for the diversity of native languages and religious viewpoints among Wikipedians, I have usually used Multilingual Bible for links to Biblical passages, although I am aware that the New World Translation is available online in many languages.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

In at least one discussion (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 June 19#No Expressions for God in Chinese?), I provided links to both the "Multilingual Bible" and the Watchtower Online Library.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Watchtower Online Library has quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia and from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Eighty-four search results are listed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=catholic+encyclopedia&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The factional strife evident in the Croatian Wikipedia reminded me of a story about interethnic harmony and political neutrality, as recorded in the 2009 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses.

• (English) Lands of the Former Yugoslavia
• (Croatian) Zemlje s područja bivše Jugoslavije
• Libraries in the Watchtower Online Library (124 languages at the time of this posting)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Wavelength.

I wanted to inform you that I've made several improvements on the Mr. Monk Goes to Hawaii page, but I must admit that I've actually come across some actual locations that match up to what the book describes. Now, I know Wikipedia's policy on image uploading is very strict, but I don't know enough about how to verify copyrighted images.

All I know is that I deliberately typed up online key points like 'Grand Kiahuna Poipu', and I got images of the Kiahuna Poipu plantation of bungalows, located in Kauai, which is where Adrian and Natalie stayed. Also, there IS a Belmont Hotel in San Francisco that matches the book's description. It's chain is called 'Extended Stay America', so this is the hotel where Adrian Monk faced off against Dylan Swift at his show. I would like to see both of these images uploaded onto the book page, as it would add credibility to the story Lee Goldberg wrote, but I also want to know how in the world both images are to meet Wikipedia's approval.

I've made a couple attempts to upload images, but when it asks for verication of its source, I can never figure out where to go next. If I don't have the required information for free use of these images, how do I find it? (By the way, I have my curiosity mostly because I saw a good image of Baker Beach, San Francisco on the Mr. Monk and the Two Assistants page.

Either way, policy or no, the bottom line I wish to express is that the Belmont Hotel described in the book is an actual hotel. It's a five-story building with a beige exterior. Naturally, I would guess any possible ownership of the image would be the hotel itself, but I don't know what else to say about the Kiahuna Plantation in Kauai. Can you give me some helpful directions on how these two pictures can meet Wikipedia's approval? Thank you.

Oovo (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)OovoReply

This revision at 01:56, 2 April 2013, was my only revision of the article. I have never uploaded an image to Wikipedia or to any of the Wikimedia wikis.

You might find helpful guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images and Wikipedia:Copyrights. See also "Freedom of panorama" and Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. If you still have questions, then you can ask User:Moonriddengirl.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this kudos.—Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this kudos.—Wavelength (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colleges which accept GMAT scores, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Tinto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The following block quotation is related to previous discussions on this talk page, and summarizes my reasoning on the use of "log into" and similar expressions.

• #Changing "in to" to "into" (section 37)
  • #Forms "log in to" and "log into" (subsection 37.1)
• #log into (section 39)
• #Log in, again, sorry (section 41)
• #"Into" (section 43)

1. If the computer expression "log in" is a "verb phrase" or a "phrasal verb", and has a meaning different from the sum of the meanings of its components, then the same is true of the computer expression "log into": it is a "verb phrase" or a "phrasal verb", and has a meaning different from the sum of the meanings of its components.
2. Whether the computer expression "log into" is common or even existent is irrelevant, because in this matter logic has precedence over experience, although examples of usage can help some people to accept its usage.
3. We are free to derive the expression "log into" from the expression "log in", just as we are free to add the suffix "ly" or the suffix "ness" to a newly learned adjective ending in the suffix "ive" or the suffix "ous", even if we have never seen or heard the word thus formed, and even if we are the first to form it and use it.
4. The use of "log into" is logical, because the preposition "into" denotes movement to a new (interior) place, or change to a new condition, among other meanings listed at wikt:into#Preposition, and a person who has just logged into a computer or a website is then in it (in a symbolic sense).
5. If people are introduced to both expressions ("log in" and "log into") simultaneously, then they probably would find it easier to accept both of them with equal ease.
6. The foregoing reasoning applies to other expressions also: "sign into", "opt into", "buy into", "check into", and others.
   

—Wavelength (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Basing a linguistic argument on logic is just plain crazy. Language is not logical. Logic does not have precedence over experience, and idiom trumps logic.--Srleffler (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

English (like most languages) is partly logical and partly illogical. (A completely illogical language would be extremely inefficient, probably requiring that every sentence be memorized. Different degrees of logic have been achieved in Esperanto and Lojban.)

Idioms do not need to be invariable: in computing, if "log in" is an idiom, then "log into" is also an idiom. We are free to insert adjectives (wikt:with a grain of salt —> "with a large grain of salt") or substitute words (wikt:on second thought —> "on third thought") or interchange words (wikt:make a mountain out of a molehill —> "make a molehill out of a mountain").

—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that language is partly logical. My statement was too strong there. Logic does not, however, have precedence over experience.

Given that "log in" is an idiom, it does not follow that "log into" is also an idiom. That's not how idioms work. You're free to invent extensions to commonly used phrases, but in doing so the result is not necessarily better than the more common wording, and is not guaranteed to be correct. Your argument vaguely reminds me of Humpty Dumpty's.--Srleffler (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Item 3 in your list is particularly troubling, in conjunction with the over-reliance on "logic" and your editing history. You seem to be asserting that you can invent completely new usages and then insert them into Wikipedia in preference to existing, established usages. This is at best not good editing practice. As much as you might like your new "logical" constructions to be in common use, Wikipedia is not the place to promote new linguistic constructions.--Srleffler (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I must agree with Srleffler, this seems like a misguided attempt to establish a new linguistic guideline that goes against current idiomatic usage and common wording. I happened upon Wavelength's work at one article and reverted it but I see there are dozens of such articles affected. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my change that produced "shortwave radio listeners who'd tuned into Axis propaganda broadcasts". Google reports these search results:

• tune in to (3,020,000,000) versus tune into (1,270,000,000);
• tuned in to (249,000,000) versus tuned into (173,000,000);
• tunes in to (605,000,000) versus tunes into (133,000,000);
• tuning in to (260,000,000) versus tuning into (40,200,000).

Those results do not say how many instances of "in to" are followed by verbs (or verb phrases), and how many are followed by nouns (or noun phrases). As you can see, the forms with "into" are widely used on the World Wide Web, besides having the advantage of logic (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/into.html).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The expression "invent completely new usages" is misleading, when I have simply combined the from "log in" and the form "into" (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/into.html) to produce "log into", which is already found on many pages of the World Wide Web, and I have done similarly with other expressions.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You assert a right to invent completely new usages in your point 3 above, in large print in a big box.

Interesting link. I think that "log in to" passes the test he prescribes. A statement like "He logs in to the computer" sounds fine to me with a pause pronounced between the "in" and the "to". See also http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/turninto.html. Logging in to a computer is much like turning a form in to an office. --Srleffler (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The statement "He logs into the computer" sounds correct to me without a pause between "in" and "to", but your version with a space and a pause between "in" and "to" sounds incorrect. Logging into a computer is like walking into a library.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Walking inside (into) a library and logging inside (into) a computer...huh? Where did the "rules" in that text box come from, anyway? And why should Wikipedia be subject to them? 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, the information in the text box is based on my understanding of the English language, and I really anticipated that people reading it would find it convincing after reading it thoroughly. Because of the many examples of usage on the World Wide Web conforming to my reasoning, I am certain that I am not alone in it. If the Wikipedia community chooses to reject it, then it would be rejecting something supported by both logic and usage. That usage is widespread in a general sense, even if it happens to be absent for a particular word string.

Google reports these search results:

• log in to (5,830,000,000) versus log into (2,280,000,000);
• logged in to (1,030,000,000) versus logged into (577,000,000);
• logs in to (207,000,000) versus logs into (104,000,000);
• logging in to (281,000,000) versus logging into (194,000,000).

If you were doing research for a new Wikipedia article, and you learned that Doctor Pop was a Superfragilistican from Superfragilistica, and you learned that the spouse of Doctor Pop was also a Superfragilistican, you might refer to them collectively as Superfragilisticans and be the first person to use that plural noun. If you discovered that Superfragilisticans were famous for their expialidocious speech, you might say that they spoke expialidociously (and be the first person to use that adverb), and you might say that their speech was categorized by expialidociousness (and be the first person to use that noun). You would not be inventing completely new words, because you would be combining forms already in existence and applying patterns of word formation that are not only regular but also common enough and basic enough to be models for unrestricted imitation. (The suffixes "-ology" and "-itis" are more complex, and usually new words having them are introduced by experts working in academic fields. However, sometimes one or the other suffix is spliced incongruously onto a word of non-Greek origin and without regard for traditional patterns of morphology.) If you used "Superfragilistican s" and "expialidocious ly" and "expialidocious ness" (with spaces), then you would be using grammatically incorrect English.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC) and 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Google result counts are a meaningless metric. Google's count estimate does not work the way you think it does. In particular you can't use common words like "log" and "into" and expect the counts Google gives to mean anything at all. Note also that if you want to search for a phrase you have to put it in quotes, otherwise you get every page that uses all the words in your search string, regardless of whether the words are adjacent to each other.--Srleffler (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has information at WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:GNUM and WP:SET.

Google reports these approximate numbers of search results (shown in parentheses) [the numbers of results that I found by clicking through the results pages are shown in brackets]:

• "tune in to" (161,000,000) [344] versus "tune into" (817,000,000) [302];
• "tuned in to" (40,000,000) [264] versus "tuned into" (1,410,000) [530];
• "tunes in to" (2,280,000) [238] versus "tunes into" (426,000) [590];
• "tuning in to" (14,500,000) [341] versus "tuning into" (1,060,000) [573];
• "log in to" (3,840,000,000) [282] versus "log into" (15,900,000) [454];
• "logged in to" (913,000,000) [233] versus "logged into" (34,400,000) [488];
• "logs in to" (3,850,000) [234] versus "logs into" (1,050,000) [540];
• "logging in to" (34,100,000) [283] versus "logging into" (7,340,000) [480].

Google Scholar reports these approximate numbers of search results:

• "tune in to" (23,600) [1000] versus "tune into" (21,900);
• "tuned in to" (21,600) versus "tuned into" (21,500);
• "tunes in to" (2,290) versus "tunes into" (3,640);
• "tuning in to" (13,400) versus "tuning into" (11,000);
• "log in to" (57,000) versus "log into" (41,600);
• "logged in to" (72,000) versus "logged into" (32,200);
• "logs in to" (9,800) versus "logs into" (30,000);
• "logging in to" (9,950) versus "logging into" (22,500).

(To save time, I developed a rhythm for clicking through the search engine results pages [SERPs]; also, I did not visit every results page, but often clicked on the last linked page number at the bottom a page. Usually, my mouse pointer was already in the right position for clicking again. In the course of my research, Google told me that it had detected "unusual traffic" from my "network", and it required me to undergo two consecutive CAPTCHA tests before allowing me to continue. Later, I decided to click through only one set of SERPs for Google Scholar, not because of CAPTCHA tests but in order to save time.)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is a link to a record of my recent revisions to some articles that I found by searching for the word string worth it. For a while, my edit summaries included the following explanation.

• If X is worth Y, then the value of Y is at least as much as the value of X.

After I noticed my error, I corrected my pattern of edit summaries, and then they included the following explanation.

• If X is worth Y, then the value of X is at least as much as the value of Y.

This is from the perspective of someone spending or enduring Y to gain or retain X.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Often people want to buy things for low prices and sell things for high prices, even if doing so means that someone else is buying things for high prices and selling things for low prices.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It can readily be seen that "into" has been a commonly accepted compound word in the English language of its creators and extended Commonwealth family. That does NOT apply to the later American construction "onto". At page 268 of the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005), we read: "on to (US and math onto)". The Wiktionary method (if such it is) of dealing with the differences between English and American-Webster spellings seem to me to be somewhat lacking in sense and utility, as I have begun to discuss there. I reverted your edit (in a non-American article) of "on to" to "onto" on the best authority. If you have a bot doing these ill-informed things, please ask it confine itself to American content. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to Google Ngram Viewer, the preposition onto was used in English as early as 1800. Its use in American English is very similar, also found as early as 1800. Its use in British English is also very similar, found as early as 1800.

According to the British National Corpus, it is common in British English. (Please note that a search for on to as two separate words would not distinguish cases where on is an adverb and to introduces a verb infinitive, as in "went on to build a bridge".)

According to OneLook Dictionary Search, the preposition onto is found in 37 general dictionaries (including some British dictionaries, at least some of which accept both onto and on to), and 10 specialized dictionaries.

My Google News Search for onto site:.uk reported about 28,500 results, including the following.

• Zomato zooms onto the Edinburgh food scene : The Edinburgh Reporter (November 8, 2013)
• Man who leapt onto tracks to save woman nominated for Merton Civic Award (From This Is Local London) (November 6, 2013)
• Images beamed onto the white cliffs of Dover by animal exports protesters - Mirror Online (November 7, 2013)
• iPhone app Hudway projects sat-nav directions onto your car windscreen - Mirror Online (November 5, 2013)
• Twitter explodes onto the stock exchange valued at $31bn - IT News from V3.co.uk (November 7, 2013)
• Cat Hangs Onto a Van Travelling 70 mph Down the M1 (October 23, 2013)

My search for onto (with spaces) in the website of the Encyclopædia Britannica reported 1354 results, including the following.

• mountain (landform) :: The Himalayan chain -- Encyclopedia Britannica (2 instances)
• drawing (art) :: Brush, pen, and dyestuffs -- Encyclopedia Britannica (1 instance)
• fresco painting -- Encyclopedia Britannica (3 instances)
• Henan (province, China) :: Drainage -- Encyclopedia Britannica (4 instances)
• geometry (mathematics) :: Linear perspective -- Encyclopedia Britannica (1 instance)
• eyeball (anatomy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica (1 instance)

The article "Comparison of American and British English" (version of 12:41, 6 November 2013) does not mention onto.

Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English (version of 18:11, 4 November 2013) has a subsection "Opportunities for commonality", which says the following.

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

From my research, it appears to me that the form onto is common to all varieties of English, and is accepted by British dictionaries that accept both forms.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• There can be no disagreement that such variant spelling usage has become common in UK print media, especially newspapers. Such evidence does not, however, vindicate the treatment of "onto" as the only correct form for Wikipedia purposes, regardless of context, as you presumed to assert. Use of Wiktionary as a source for that view was found, at the time, to be oddly justified, because I found herein an absurdly restricted definition of "on to" which I immediately remediated. I cannot accept that Wiktionary has yet acquired a status which places it above the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors as a lexicon for professional usage of written English. Of course, that in no way deters the masses from customary freedom to adopt vernacular variations. Bjenks (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even if "onto" is not the only correct form, it is common to both American and British English. (See the first sentence in my quotation from the Manual of Style.) In some cases, the form common to both is a third form different from a "more American" form and a "more British" form, but in this case, the form common to both happens to coincide with the "more American" form. In other cases, the form common to both may coincide with the "more British" form, and it would be reasonable to adopt that form in Wikipedia. In the future, I might use "WP:VNE" in my edit summaries.

I provided, in my edit summaries, a link to the Wiktionary entry as a convenience to other editors, because, in the correct format, links to pages in other Wikimedia projects are active links. (Project shortcuts are shown at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Linking between projects and Help:Interwikimedia links.) Like you, I have found information in Wiktionary with which I disagree. My edit summaries could have mentioned one or more additional links to pages outside the Wikimedia family of projects, but an editor might not be willing to copy the web address from an edit summary and paste it onto an address bar.

Also, I have found a few articles where "on to" is ambiguous, even in context, and I left it unchanged. Especially in articles related to railways, I found expressions like "moved on to the _____ line", where a train might have "proceeded ... and arrived at the _____ line" or "moved to a position on the _____ line". (In these examples, there is a difference in meaning between "being at a line" and "being on a line".) Especially in articles related to sports, I found expressions like "moved on to the _____ team", where a player might have "left ... and joined the _____ team" or "transferred ... to a position on the team". (In these examples, the meaning is approximately the same, but there is possibly a slight difference in emphasis.) Where the meaning is known to be that of "onto" ("to a position on"), the use of "onto" is preferable for avoiding ambiguity.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernestine Huckleby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply