User talk:Jackrickenbacker
why?
[edit]Can you please explain why you reverted my edit? -- GB fan 17:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't 100% sure why you changed my edit from dialog to dialogue. I think dialogue is a better version of the word because it is more common. Is there a specific reason you undid mine? Jackrickenbacker (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Jackrickenbacker
- Dialogue is more common in British English and dialog is more common in American English. Since this is an article about an American subject we should be using the American spelling of words. If you click on the link I left in my edit summary, WP:ENGVAR, you will see what the Manual of style says about variations of English. -- GB fan 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand that dialog is an American variant of the word dialogue, but I've seen nothing in my search that indicates it is more common or proper. I think until it is established to the degree that color and colour are, it should stay as dialogue. Jackrickenbacker (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Jackrickebacker
In the wiki manual of style it shows "dialogue" first, then dialog. Also, it has (conversation) after dialogue and (text) after dialog, and I think the former is more appropriate here. Jackrickenbacker (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Jackrickenbacker
Here's a link to the chart: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling
- Actually, according to Merriam-Webster, Jack's edit seems to bes correct: dialogue is preferred (dialog isn't even listed, but redirects to dialogue.) "Dialog box" is listed, in the context of computer applications. I take MW to be representative of American English, and it generally notes British variants. It says absolutely nothing about British variant, so it seems to contradict the idea that dialogue is British. So when we Americans write "dialog", we're not being American, but just lazy (or computer nerds.) Does the OED say different? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jessica Lynch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Miller. 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) 09:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Jackrickenbacker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Jackrickenbacker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)