User talk:Jerzy/Archive 01

Verbose Disamb Page Soviet

Bolshevik Understanding

Soviets - frame 1

On User talk:203.5.110.252, i wrote in part (about Soviet)

... For the promotion of the terminology of editing (and not to contest your edits at all), i note in finicky fashion that

when i wrote "in accord to Bolshevik understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory", i probably meant to say "in accord with Bolshevik understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory" (and probably wanted no article between "with" and its object), and
i'd rather see it said that there's nothing wrong with the grammar tho a slip of the pen made my usage odd and worth changing, and
tho the result is fine, you effected a subtle change of meaning.

(But on the assumption that i find these a lot more interesting than you, i'll continue at talk user:Jerzy#My Bad Writing rather than here.)...

Some "editology" comments that seemed better taking up space here than there follow now:

It seems to me that all the parts of speech were in a syntactically acceptable relation to one another. It's true that the parts of speech they teach us all in school are not the full story that linguists recognize (there are languages that recognize not just masculine, feminine, and neuter genders, but also invisible gender and so on), and it's reasonable and i think not a violation of linguistics custom to regard, e.g., the distinction between, say, nouns that can and can't be read and told as a part-of-speech distinction. But it seems to me more useful to speak of "in accord to" (my typo) as a usage error than a grammar one.

These particular verbs, prepositions, and nouns are subject to some "rules" (such as "'accord with' and 'according to' but not 'accord to'") that are better understood as reflecting which constructions have familiar interpretations and which are rare enough to be make the ambiguity an effort to resolve.

As to the change of meaning that resulted, within a slip of the pen i wrote (without conscious choice of words) "organized in accord [with] Bolshevik understanding..." rather than "organized according to the Bolshevik understanding..." to imply "organized in a way consistent with the body of different understandings among Bolsheviks" as opposed to "organized as required by the single clearcut Bolshevik understanding".

(Now, of course that may have been naïve of me; the Bolsheviks are famous for emphasizing the "centralism" aspect to the near exclusion of the "democratic" one in "democratic centralism" -- even if

Dr. Zhivago 's portrayal of contention between the commander and the political officer of Zhivago's guerrilla unit (in the movie at least) and
his encounter with a locally instituted 10-day week, with various trades each having a different day off (in the novel only)

suggest substantial pluralism in this period.) --Jerzy 07:34, 2003 Oct 29 (UTC)

Soviets - Frame 2: A reply about Soviets

Jerzy. I pictured "Soviets organised in accord with Bolshevik principles" as the Soviets forming an equal alliance and voluntarily choosing Bolshevik principles. "...according to..." is more neutral. It doesn't seem to indicate who did the organising and how. I'd suggest adding a sentance on that, or clarifying the parenthesis on independent soviets. As far as a plurality of Bolshevik views, I think it would be simpler to pluralise the "principles" or "ideologies" of the Bolsheviks. Pluralism certainly was present, but its a bit confused in the article at the moment. Vi chitaete pa Ruskij? Ya nye ochen chitaete pa Ruskij.

Soviets - Frame 3 - Jerzy again

Sorry if i seemed to be questioning yr edit; i was more interested in the existence of the nuances in my own edit -- which escaped me until you drew attention to them by choosing a completely different way from mine, of correcting my mis-chosen preposition. (Mis-chosen or, probably, suited to my first wording of that bullet, and becoming unsuitable when i changed something else w/o changing the preposition (without then proof-reading adequately).

Don't let my musings upset yr plan for the article or related ones; i'm happy to have contributed what i did, and no doubt will be happy to watch it evolve into something probably much better than mine. FWIW, you should know that i reached that page either from a Random Page or by a nearly random wander from something now forgotten; when i got to Soviet, it looked spotty to me (not, e.g., what i assume you would have written), and from J. Reed some 30 years ago, my trick memory (why should anyone recall "Smolny Institute" that long w/o using it?) came up with stuff which i worked into what you found & fixed.

But i lack the depth of knowledge to judge whether you've POVed the level of diversity among the Bolsheviki of that period. And i'm far from any position of ability to judge whether you've "answered" my seeming "complaints" abt the implications of what you editted in. Pls treat it more like a bemused interest in how little changing of my words it took, to replace my nuances with others (whether or not some (not me) might see them as crucial to the subject). (Think of that as why it was on this talk page, rather than yours or the articles', that i continued: i'm talking far more abt how we all use language than abt s- & S- oviets, or the article on them.)

(Temp) Deletion of Soviet

Erm...yeah, good point. Who would delete such a thing? It went through the new transwiki system rather than VfD, which I think I've just proven is a rather bad system. If you look at the Transwiki log, you can see that Smack moved the article to Wiktionary. As this had been done, it makes the article instantly deletable, which I did. This is obviously not a Good Thing. I've undeleted it and, when I'm a bit more awake, I'll rewrite m:transwiki and the Deletion policy to reflect these issues. Sorry for any disturbance this caused you. I don't personally think it should be deleted anyway. Angela . 20:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A disambiguation notice at the bottom of the page would probably be a good idea. Angela . 20:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: Family-name-first Names

I wish I could get clear direction on the ordering of Japanese names. I know that the last name is traditionally put first, but I've always known Haruomi (or Harry) to use that order. I'm in the dark, and you can look at the history and see that I wasn't sure one way or the other. Any advice you have would be great. - sugarfish 05:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Intel 4004

Hi Jerzy, to keep things nice'n'tidy I like to discuss subjects in one place, so feel free to come on over. --Wernher 05:43, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IFF

Jerzy, I forget why I got involved with this one - it's not something I have any expertise on, it just linked to something I was working on and I noticed the duplication and try to sort it out. So I'm very happy for you and Bryan (? - can't go back to check) to manage it between you. Thanks for asking. seglea 19:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Old Miscellany

moin!, my answer to your posting on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Pit: Yes, I can change it anytime.. so did I, now. Now its Denmark not Danmark. thank you for taking notice! -- pit

for the explanation of moin just click! *g* its a typical greeting in Bremen.. greetings! - pit

You can sign your name with ~~~~. When does his term end? Let's not assume he will complete his term. We dont go to the George W. Bush article adding that "he is the President of the United States until 2005" and change it to 2009 if he gets reelected. That's ridiculous. We just state that he is the president. Unlike other encyclopedias, WP articles can be updated/edited regularly. --Jiang

Reading your comment on Hawaii I wonder what law exists on a federal level that prevents North Dakota from changing its name to Dakota. I couldn't find anything on google. Rmhermen 02:49, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I just read the act of admision of Hawaii [1] and don't see that it notes a legal opinion in 1961 that would negate deals like that which forced Utah to ban polygamy. I still haven't seen that states don't have the power to change their own names. At worst you would have a situation like Newfoundland where until recently the federal government called it a different name than the provincial government used for itself. Rmhermen 14:12, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

(reply to Jiang)

I owe an apology, as part of a longer response, left over from our discussion about Sen. Akaka, but if i don't get it on here w/in 30 min., i'm not confident of getting it taken care of before the new week.

Tnx again; you are being helpful. --Jerzy 02:12, 2003 Nov 15 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the "VfD" thing. Silly me, probably b/c I'd been away from the computer a while and forgot my normal routine. Not sure to what you're referring w/ the "tilde" comment. I thought it was spelled "tilda," but I can't recall ever doing anything on wikipedia involving the spelling of it. --zandperl 21:38, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stopped editing as a reasonable hour? As if I'd do thing like that ;) The users you mentioned seem to have made two edits and gone away, but I'll check again later to see if they return. Most vandals do go away quite quickly, so I think you right here not to bother listing them on ViP. Sometimes that encourages them. Angela . 03:03, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Note: User:Jimbo Wales page already says he is the 'Benevolent Dictator' of Wikipedia, so I thought I'd put it in. I have no opinion either way about him, I just thought it would be funnier that way.

--Rfc1394 20:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I agree it's an unusual standard. - Hephaestos 02:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-- Custom messages --

{{msg:disputed}} and {{msg:Disputed}} will produce the same thing. Like with article titles, the first letter of capitalisation doesn't matter, but the capitalisation of the rest of the word does. How do you mean it doesn't work? It seems to work for me:
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Angela . 03:57, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Nation-State

(Hmm, i must have put a copy here, later, for context, of what i edited into DQ's Talk page:) You wrote on VfD that

'nation-state' means something else.

but it sounds to me like the recent history of how it has been used in List of nation states and Nation state is consistent. (Or did i screw up interpreting the page-histories of the pages and redirect?) I intend, unless someone else starts a discussion of this on Talk:Nation state or somewhere else off VfD, to do so and reference it by responding to you on VfD. I'll undertake that from a library, with The Oxford Companion to ~~Politics~~ ~~(or is it something like "...World~~ Politics of the World ~~"?)~~ at my side. Of course a sketch of the differences you have in mind would be helpful. --Jerzy 16:01, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)

It seems like a very fuzzy definition indeed. I'm not really sure the word is used in this way or applied to those countries in this way now. I've always seen the word used in the context of historical earlier forms of states. The fuzziness and possible non-NPOV of our definition and how it is being applied concerns me more, though. Daniel Quinlan 22:07, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

List of people - Response from Paul (User Rfc1394)

[Content under this heading, about 2 KB, moved to (for now, top of) User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN under same heading. --Jerzy (t) 16:39, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)]