/What links here (29 September 2008) (165 pages) – /Archive 1 (99 kilobytes) (64 sections) (created 29 September 2008)
/What links here (9 September 2009) (632 pages) – /Archive 2 (124 kilobytes) (64 sections) (created 9 September 2009)

Requests about Discussions (Version 2) Please use my exact username or no name at all when communicating to me or about me on Wikipedia pages. It has only ten characters and is seldom needed for clarity. Please consider yourself welcome to refer to me by using one or more epicene pronouns. For example: I know tem. Tey said it temself (terself). This is ter idea. This is ters. If I left a message on an article talk page or on your user talk page and you wish to leave a message in response, please respond where I left the message. I intend to keep all such pages on my watchlist for at least two weeks after my last message. If you are starting a discussion, please give some thought to choosing a meaningful heading, unique on the page, for easy navigation. Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox) First 2 Words: A Signal for the Scanning Eye (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox) F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)

Contents 1 Thank you! Copy-editing the Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style 2 Noetica 3 Article on collaborative vs group performance 4 Columbia River 5 Articles for deletion nomination of List of class action lawsuits 6 Articles for deletion nomination of List of gender equality lawsuits 7 Questions I've asked on the Reference Desks 8 Punct. 9 "because of" 9.1 "because of" (part 2) 9.2 "because of" (part 3) 10 Is this really your first barnstar? 11 what a conundrum 12 November 2009 13 External links 14 Archive search box 15 Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_inciden

[edit] Thank you! Copy-editing the Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style

Hi Wavelength: Thanks hugely for copy-editing the concise version of the MoS main page; you have most certainly improved it!

I hope you don't mind my removing "that" in two places, under "Images": "Most pictures should be displayed so they are between 100 and 400 pixels wide. The maximum should generally not exceed 500 pixels in height or 400 pixels in width, so the image can be comfortably displayed within the text on the smallest displays in common use."

I used to include "that" in such cases, until User:Hoary removed it from one of my pages and I realised it's usually unnecessary (and clogs a little). Tony (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I might check it again in the future.

I do not mind your removal of "that" in two places. For precision in such instances, I prefer to restrict "so" to clauses indicating result, and "so that" to clauses indicating purpose. However, I am aware of people using "so" for purpose and "so that" for result. (For those who say, "Such precision is unnecessary if the meaning is evident from the context", I say, "It is evident this time, but it might not be evident the next time, so there is less ambiguity if we practice precision every time.")

I gave a heading to this discussion, after some pondering. In this instance, I found it challenging to choose one that would be brief (without abbreviations) and precise, so I decided in favor of a little more precision and a little less brevity than what I might usually choose.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A few MoS regulars have complained that some of the wordings are too "terse". They may be right in a few cases, but I'm unconvinced that readers can't easily adapt to the brevity. Wordiness is what puts a lot of people off the MoS. A related misgiving is the use of point-initial bolded themes. Your thoughts on both? Tony (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you did give a heading to this discussion, but that you misplaced it, above the introductory information. Therefore, I am combining your heading ("Thank you!") with the one which I composed, and which I discussed above at 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC). On the matter of terseness versus wordiness, I need to consider specific instances separately. If, by "point-initial bolded themes", you mean boldface text such as "Seasons" under WP:MOS#Calendar items, then of course they are an aid to navigation, and I am surprised that someone would find such a thing to be objectionable. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Noetica

I'm afraid he walked out a few weeks ago, blaming me. I'm unsure what the issue is, since he refuses to communicate. Possessives at MoS? Tony (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, even though it is very negative. By saying that "he walked out", do you mean that he left Wikipedia in a more definitive way than previously? (See User talk:Noetica#A wikibreak.) For identifying what the issue is, there might be a clue in his latest edit, at 12:06, 22 August 2009. You probably understand his personality much better than I do. Does he refuse to communicate even by e-mail? Is it possible that what seems to be refusal is actually an inability caused by extenuating circumstances?

Because of the very important influence that both of you have had in developing the Manual of Style, and because of the importance of the Manual of Style in guiding the editing of Wikipedia articles, and because of the very great influence of Wikipedia on the Internet, it is critical that both of you be very careful of your relationship with each other. I am reminded of the keystone influence of parents in a family, and of how an upheaval in their relationship can have devastating repercussions for their children. Likewise, disagreements in a business partnership can cause serious problems to its employees.

If Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee is analogous to a court, does Wikipedia have anything analogous to relationship counseling? We have Category:Wikipedia user conduct and Category:Wikipedia conduct policy, but is there anything to provide real-time guidance for specific relationships, with analogous privacy?

Noetica has definitely been a very valuable asset to Wikipedia, and his absence is a severe loss. He has weathered the unappreciative treatment dealt to him by a number of less qualified editors, but I might have thought that you would be his most loyal supporter, and maybe you are. For my part, I believe that the Manual of Style (including all its subpages) would fare much better if he made all the final decisions about it unilaterally. I have seen his extraordinary skill in trying to overcome the impasse concerning possessives, and the inadequate response to his four-part questionnaire. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Recent changes to the "Possessives" section.) By necessity, it involves deep thinking, which might have been too much for some editors. I myself did not complete the questionnaire, but I stated my reason. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Let's start anew and solve this? on the same page.) If editors are unable to give adequate counterarguments to his proposals, then at least they can get out of the way and let real progress take place. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably to do with that reversion and a difficult exchange beforehand about the wording that was about to be posted.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The preceding discussion followed my contribution to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style at 15:22, 22 September 2009, in a discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#Silently correct typos in quotes?, and specifically under the following subheading: "[Sic]" considered harmful. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When Noetica first appeared on the Ref Desks, we struck up a good rapport, and because we lived not too far from each other at the time, I suggested we meet up. He was open to the idea, and my partner and I spent a lovely few hours at his home, around Easter 2008. (This, by the way, was only the second one-to-one meeting I’ve ever proposed in my almost 6 years here, and the only one that actually occurred). He’s a fascinating fellow – not that I was at all surprised about that. I remember him recommending Tony as an excellent and erudite editor for whom he had great respect. So, I’m saddened they’ve had some sort of parting of the ways. I hope it doesn’t spell the end of Noetica’s relationship with WP entirely; we can ill afford to lose such a resource. We said we’d keep in touch, but that hasn’t happened much. I did call him when he mysteriously vanished the first time (this would have been about a year ago now), just to make sure he was ok. He was fine; just busy with real life events, and WP was assuming a rather low priority. I can only assume that’s the reason again. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article on collaborative vs group performance

Thanks; it's a good piece. It suggests that the lack of real collaboration among WP editors (rather, it's normally a group effort) is good for outcomes. This is reinforced by the fact that most editing is based on secondary sources rather than difficult original research. Perhaps it explains why the style and policy pages are so fraught with tension. Tony (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your message is in response to my message on your talk page. Discussions are easier to follow if they are not divided on separate talk pages. That is why, in the rectangle at the top of this page, I requested that any editor wishing to respond to a message by me on that editor's talk page do so on the same page.

In the four-page article "Are two heads better than one?", at http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_15-editionID_89-ArticleID_491-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/dec02thompson.pdf, the most salient information for me is found on the second page (page 617). Under the heading "So do too many cooks always spoil the broth?", and more specifically under the subheading "Friend or stranger?", the author suggests that collaboration is beneficial to memory when friends are involved, because of the degree to which they understand and trust the working of each other's memory. She suggests that strangers are more prone to misunderstand each other, and more prone to mistrust (or to misplace trust in) each other–thus, collaboration hinders memory performance. I made the extrapolation that those effects might apply to collaborative activities more generally, not only to remembering, but also to decision-making and to other mental activities.

Maybe Wikipedia would function better (though still not perfectly) if its editors were organized according to mutually shared ways of thinking.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia River

Thanks for your excellent -- and clearly explained -- edits to the newly-FA'ified Columbia River. Much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion nomination of List of class action lawsuits

I have nominated List of class action lawsuits, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of class action lawsuits. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. I am removing the duplicate notification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion nomination of List of gender equality lawsuits

I have nominated List of gender equality lawsuits, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gender equality lawsuits. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions I've asked on the Reference Desks

Wow! Such a service deserves acknowledgment, and thanks. We are indeed on the same "wavelength", because more than once I've thought of creating exactly this list, but never got around to it. There are probably just as many again on Miscellaneous, Humanities and Entertainment. I've also asked a few questions at Science and Mathematics. Thanks again. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message is in response to my message at 03:16, 24 October 2009 on your talk page. If you do put those 77 links on a new subpage, please provide me with a link to that subpage. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Punct.

Thanks for the links. I've read the Eats, Shoots book; it was a little disappointing to me, but everyone liked it. Tony (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your message is in response to my messages at User talk:Tony1 [Section 22, "PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting)"].

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "because of"

I noticed that you've been changing instances of "due to" to "because of", often in places where the latter doesn't make sense. The two words are both prepositions, but they have different meanings. You shouldn't change one to the other just because of a prescriptivist injunction. Bob A (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to some "places where the latter doesn't make sense". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambodia&diff=prev&oldid=324767997. Bob A (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed

The recovery of Cambodia's economy slowed dramatically in 1997–98, due to the regional economic crisis, civil violence, and political infighting.

to

The recovery of Cambodia's economy slowed dramatically in 1997–98, because of the regional economic crisis, civil violence, and political infighting.

The first version does not make sense, because none of the things represented by the nouns in the preceding clause was due to the problems mentioned in the rest of the sentence. The economy slowed because of those problems, therefore the second version does make sense. (http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What definition of "due to" are you using? Anyway, my point was that prescriptivism isn't a good reason to avoid using certain constructions. Bob A (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In saying that none of those things was due to those problems, I am using the definition "caused by", where "caused" is a participial adjective. I am using the context to decide what meaning was probably intended. However, I have been leaving unchanged other instances, where "due to" does mean "caused by" or means "scheduled to".

My first impulse to avoid "due to" in the corrected instances is from my own judgement. However, I have provided a web address to support my decision. Even if some references allow that usage (http://www.onelook.com/?w=due+to&ls=a), "because of" is more logical. I disagree with your point about linguistic prescription. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[I am inserting a comma before a non-restrictive clause: where "due to" does mean "caused by" or means "scheduled to".

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)]

Are you basically arguing that "due to" shouldn't be used in certain syntactic contexts because it comes from a participle? Bob A (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am saying that it is illogical in some contexts because due is an adjective. Please consider the following sentence: Adolf insured his store for one million dollars, due to the gangster criminals in his precinct. Which noun does the adjective due modify?

If the last eight words are intended to modify the first eight words, then the sentence lacks a linking verb connecting the adjective due with a noun among the first eight words. The following sentence makes sense: Adolf insured his store for one million dollars, because of the gangster criminals in his precinct.

Here is another sentence: At the dog show, Sandra received a prize, due to her charming and talented companion dog. Which noun does the adjective due modify?

The following sentence makes sense: At the dog show, Sandra received a prize, because of her charming and talented companion dog. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In both of those sentences, "due" doesn't modify any noun because it's part of the preposition "due to". Look it up on wiktionary. p.s. The definition on french wiktionary might be more helpful. Bob A (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At wikt:due to, the adjective "due" modifies the noun "unemployment" in the first sentence and the noun "accident" in the second sentence. The definition at fr:wikt:due to is not more helpful.

My Google search for the exact wording "due to vs because of" reported millions of results.

• GMAT Tutorials: Sentence Correction - Due to vs Because of: "Due to is an adjectival prepositional phrase, meaning it modifies a noun." "Because of is an adverbial prepositional phrase, meaning it modifies a verb."
• Grammatically Correct: When to use "due to" versus "because of"

Some people in the mass media have popularized the misuse of "due to", and some reference works have condoned that misuse, but those are not reasons for Wikipedia to copy them. Readers who know the proper use and the misuse of "due to" will have a less favorable impression of Wikipedia from seeing it misused, but there is not that problem when "due to" is corrected to "because of". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The point was that "due to" is a preposition. If you want to call something a "misuse" because some people artificially restrict their speech to exclude it, then go ahead, but that doesn't reflect the way the language is actually used. I'm not aware of anything in the MoS that mandates such awkward formalities. Bob A (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that "due" is an adjective and modifies a noun. In the two sample sentences which I presented above, it modifies the nouns "dollars" and "prize", if the sentences are formed correctly.

It's not an adjective in that context as evidenced in the fact that "due to" is used as a preposition, even in contexts where it doesn't refer to any noun. Also, it can't be used by itself. In the wiktionary examples you'd have *"Rising unemployment due is spreading." and *"The accident was due." Bob A (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is neither artificial nor awkward for people who are adept in applying it. On the other hand, errors are widespread in the way in which English is actually used.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Further reading says: "Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with other guides to style and usage, which may cover details that are not included in this Manual of Style." That is what I have done. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any dialect where that usage is forbidden. Furthermore, how can you say that something is an error when it's actually in use? Bob A (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "because of" (part 2)

This message begins with some preliminary comments. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am adding four tildes after each sentence, because you interrupted my previous message. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• I am trying to respond to all of your points adequately but concisely. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Now please do not interrupt any of my sentences. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• In a separate decision, I am also starting a new subsection, for easier editing. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am reproducing here the two Wiktionary examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Rising unemployment due to the economic downturn is spreading." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The accident was due to the breaking of one of the blades of the propeller on the left side." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am analyzing here the two Wiktionary examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• In those two sentences, "due to" is equivalent to "caused by". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• In those two sentences, "due to" can be replaced by "caused by" with no change of meaning. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• In those two sentences, the words "due" and "caused" are both adjectives. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The following sentences are absurd. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Rising unemployment due is spreading." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Rising unemployment caused is spreading." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The following sentences are generally absurd, except perhaps in philosophical contexts. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The accident was due." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The accident was caused." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The adjective "due" can be separated from the preposition "to" when the object of the preposition is an interrogative pronoun or a relative pronoun. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• J Am Med Assoc -- Excerpt: TO WHAT ARE DUE THE EFFECTS OF ALTITUDE ON MAN?, September 25, 1915, LXV (13): 1112 (The adjective "due" modifies the noun "effects".) -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Metallic Luster. II - The Journal of Physical Chemistry (ACS Publications) (paragraph 4) "If one asks a physicist to what metallic luster is due, he is very apt to talk about free electrons; and this sort of thing is not always confined to physicists." -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• The Scenery of England and the ... - Google Books "The Scenery of England and the Causes to Which It Is Due" (The adjective "due" modifies the noun "scenery".) -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have referred you to a few style guides (and some logic) which forbid the usage in question. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You have referred me to no style guide (and no logic) which forbids the use of "because of". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me restate my contention. The use of the word "due to" where the word "due" doesn't appear to refer to a noun (let's call that "adverbial "due to"") is common, even (or perhaps especially) in writing. No native speaker would recognise it as an error, any more than they would recognise "who are you talking to?" as an error. Grammatically, it isn't problematic at all because "due to" functions as a prepositon, just like "regardless of" and "according to". Even if a sentence doesn't make sense when the word "due" is treated as an adjective, it makes sense when "due to" is treated as a preposition, because prepositional phrases can function either adjectivally or adverbially. If you try to force "due" to be an adjective, no matter how much it's used to the contrary, then you're just being unscientific. Linguistics is a science, and all scientific theories need to be falsifiable.

The more difficult question is whether this usage should be avoided on wikipedia because it's perceived as informal or bad style. I rather doubt that it should and the few websites you linked to don't seem nearly authoritative enough to establish such a rule. If you still disagree, then i suppose we should bring this up on the MoS page, but i honestly can't be bothered to mess with that. Bob A (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Many errors are common even in writing by professional writers. (http://linguisoft.com/) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to choose our exemplars more carefully now than in the past. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are people and also style guides that regard adverbial "due to" as an error. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Forcing "due to" to be adverbial is considered by them to be incorrect. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style will probably not ever include a guideline about "due to". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been proposals at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for it to be reduced in size. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the right-hand side of the Manual, there is a list of subpages. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

None of those subpages seems to be applicable to "due to". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of the Manual, there is a link to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

None of those guidelines seems to be applicable to "due to". -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant Wikipedia pages seem to be the following. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Common grammatical errors and Wikipedia talk:Common grammatical errors -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to spend much time in discussing this issue. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The expression "according to" can be used either adjectivally or adverbially. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• According to Matthew, the Gospel is interesting. (adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• The Gospel according to Matthew is interesting. (adjectivally) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• The Gospel, according to Matthew, is interesting. (adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• The Gospel is interesting, according to Matthew. (adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Other errors include confusion of the following expressions. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• "based on" (used adjectivally) and "on the basis of" (used adverbially) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Clyde criticized the report based on unreliable rumors. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Clyde criticized the report on the basis of unreliable rumors. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• "pre" (prefix) and "before" (preposition) and "before" (conjunction) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding was a prewar ceremony. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding took place before the war. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding took place before the war began. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• "post" (prefix); "after" (preposition); "after" (conjunction); "following" (participial adjective) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding was a postwar ceremony. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding took place after the war. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding took place after the war ended. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The wedding was a ceremony following the war. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "because of" (part 3)

I do not know which websites you would consider to be adequately authoritative. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[in reply to no particular one of the above points] Given that you seem to suggest that usages can be "errors" even when they're common in professional writing, what would falsify your proposition that adverbial "due to" is incorrect? Bob A (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since your latest message here, I have been researching falsifiability in various places. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have examined the article Falsifiability, including the section "Criticisms". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have read The Myth of Falsifiability, by John F. McGowan, Ph.D. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The falsifiability theory seems faulty, and I offer no falsifier with the ban on adverbial "due to". Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mcgowan seems to me to confuse specific variations of a theory (e.g., evolution by natural selection without punctuated equilibria) with the "theory" itself (e.g., "evolution"). It seems axiomatic to me that for information to have empirical content implies that it's falsifiable. In linguistics, prescriptions such as the rule against adverbial "due to" are considered separate from descriptive rules, which model how a language works. By the way, most professional linguists take a very dim view of prescriptivism. (Take a look, for example, at the language log.) Bob A (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really your first barnstar?

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For sparing me (and others) this. Paradoctor (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would've put this on your user page, but it doesn't seem to fit into your layout, so I'll leave the proper display to you. Thanks again. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wavelength#Works on subpages has a link to User:Wavelength/Awards, where there are four previous barnstars. Thank you for putting it here, and for leaving the display to me. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] what a conundrum

nice work a few days ago at the ref desk with my question : ]  ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your message follows my second contribution to "Chain conundrums, anyone?" on the page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language at 03:19, 17 November 2009. You might like to see Willard R. Espy and Espy Foundation. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Lebanon, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Eugeniu Bmsg 06:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Your posting of the same external links on numerous articles is patently unhelpful, and I really urge you to read WP:ELNO. I'm particularly concerned about your attempts to push sites run by trial lawyers on asbestos and mesothelioma pages. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archive search box

Neat, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. (I edited User talk:Adam Bishop at 20:11, 1 December 2009.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the effort. Matt Deres (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. (I edited User talk:Matt Deres at 20:19, 1 December 2009.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, Wavelength; I've installed it at the top of my talk page. BTW, for a while now the Werdnabot auto-archiver on my talk page seems to have broken down. Things are piling up. It's still listed as in the Werdnabot category at the bottom. I have no idea what has happened, and I'm not good at fixing things like that. Is there a better auto-archiver around, anyway? Tony (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you can use Misza13's bot to auto-archive. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you are welcome. (I edited User talk:Tony1 at 17:36, 1 December 2009.) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on how archiving bots function, but I know that the operator of User:Werdnabot is User:Werdna, and I suggest that you leave a message at User talk:Werdna, explaining the problem. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_inciden

This is obscure at best [1]. That article is the subject of much edit warring. Please don't add such links without a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)