User talk:SpNeo

This user may have left Wikipedia. SpNeo has not edited Wikipedia since September 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archive 1

Archive 2

National varieties of English in WP[edit]

Hi there, Thanks for the links to help with the [spelling templates proposal] for WP. Given your vast experience in this field, I would be very interested in your opinion and your criticism about the proposal. A few issues have been raised by other editors. The only ones I find of some (limited) concern are:

Spellings varieties in titles
Caching/performance impact

Another thing that I'd like to know is whether there are other languages that have a similar issue and would benefit from such a mechanism, possibly even more than English. (Spanish? Portuguese? French?)

Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats[edit]

Hi! I noticed that in some of your copyedits you change date formats. So I just wanted to ensure that you realise that readers will see exactly the same thing whether you write [[10 December]] or [[December 10]]—the wikipedia software automatically reformats these dates to whichever format the reader has chosen in his/her preferences. JeremyA 02:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, valid point on the anon users (I actually thought that it defaulted to the US format for them). JeremyA 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. Logged in readers will see exactly the same thing whatever you write, non-logged-in users will see exactly what you write. This means that it is sensible for articles to be consistent in the style they use, jguk 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages proposal[edit]

Hi there, I'm writing because at some point you showed interest in a proposal to solve the problems related to national varieties of English. There is a discussion and a vote ongoing here. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 14:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO[edit]

Please stop changing the spelling of NATO. It is an international organization, and different countries refer to it with different spellings. In Canada it is almost always referred to as the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization," and government documents refer to it as such. (see for instance [1]) - SimonP 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO itself freely uses both. If you search the NATO website you actually get more hits for "z" than you do for "s". - SimonP 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO quite clearly considers both spellings official. Consider this treaty between NATO and Russia, or this official document from 1951, or the treaty for the accession of Spain. - SimonP 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Ministry of Defense[edit]

Thank you for amending my contributions to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero article. I was taught British English in the school, but I have read the link you left and I understand that's a proper name. Maybe I have made this mistake because my broken English as I come from Spain. Mabuimo 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labour movement[edit]

Hi SpNeo. Nice work in delegating the alternate spelling of labour to a {{ref}} note. It is a much cleaner look. Would you be interested in bringing the idea up at WikiProject Organized Labour as a style suggestion? --Bookandcoffee 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

One can set one's preferred date format in one's user preferences. All wikilinked dates will then be rendered according to that preference. Jkelly 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But if no preferences are set, the date format used in the source code is displayed. SpNeo 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If an article has been stable...."[edit]

You write: In all other cases, the spelling used by the first major contributor should be followed. If, however, an article has been stable for a long time using a different spelling, the spelling shouldn't be changed back to the first major contributor's spelling. I haven't seen that anywhere else. Is this policy, was it policy but is no longer, or is this just your own suggestion? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 10:08 (UTC)

You're right, it's currently not part of the MoS (I've put an additional sentence on my user page highlighting this). I think this issue was discussed frequently and was part of the MoS for some time. I think it's still regarded as an important unwritten rule, otherwise many articles would have to be changed to conform to the first major contributor's spelling... this would lead to horrible edit wars... SpNeo 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just noticed the change. From what I've seen, people actually have widely divergent views of what the unwritten rule about the role of the first non-stub version's spelling. Letting the first non-stub version trump other considerations (aside from the country-specific criterion) seems like a good idea to me: it's a clear and (generally) easy way to settle questions about an article's spelling. Without it, one has to think about how long "dialect drift" has been going on to consider the new spelling "legal". --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 06:55 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by your edits to the Spain page. You have changed some spellings from US to UK, and some from UK to US.

--Bcnviajero 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Superb work, thanks Vermelho27 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favouritism listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Favouritism. Since you had some involvement with the Favouritism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cnilep (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]