Talk:John Davie (British Army officer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grammar[edit]

SchroCat, with all due respect, these are not US commas. When a sentence begins with a prepositional phrase, that phrase requires a comma to follow it in all versions of English. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can drop the "due respect" crap again. This is not a comma that is needed in British English. Stop carpet bombing British English articles with commas if you don't understand them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, just because you don't want to be civil with me does not mean that I can't be civil with you. Looks like I've got to try another form of dispute resolution here. The article's edit history suggests that nobody else is watching this page. GrammarDamner (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening at all are you – to anything I write. I've linked the advice explaining why "due respect" is something that's best not to use, and as I've asked you more than once to stop using it when talking to me, I wonder why you are continuing to use it.
Secondly, comma use in British English differs to whatever variant you are using. You need to start understanding that, rather than just refusing to accept what others say. I have a bible that reads "In the beginning was the Word": no comma. Shakespeare, Dickens, Orwell - none of them needed the comma after a two-word introductory phrase. Good modern writers don't bother with it either, and the style guides (those in British English, not the US ones) sometimes advise use if there are more than four words. Again, if you take anything away from this, COMMA USE IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN BRITISH AND AMERICAN ENGLISH. If you can't get that into your skull, then maybe it's best if you avoid editing articles on British topics. – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm choosing to be civil, the phrase "with all due respect" can be taken as condescending by some people, if they choose, but I mean it sincerely. And I feel that you are not listening to anything I'm saying. As you may recall, I'm not the only editor who feels this way. Commas following prepositional phrases are necessary and make reading much easier. This is not an issue regarding particular variants of English. GrammarDamner (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Commas following prepositional phrases are necessary": no they are not. "and make reading much easier": no they do not. "This is not an issue regarding particular variants of English": yes it is. It is not commonly used in good British English. I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. If you can't accept what I am saying, please consult a copy of Fowlers Modern English Usage (the section on "Stops"), and see if you can find where it describes the use you are trying to implement. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:SchroCat, User:GrammarDamner - My advice is, first, both take it easy, second, request a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion noticeboard. It might be best to ask for an editor who is neither a Briton nor an American. A Canadian or Australian or Anglophone European would be fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The article is in British English, why ask someone else who doesn't know? - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat is quite correct. In British English we would not place commas there. If I’d been editing this article I too would have taken them off. Jack1956 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct to remove them: under English English the commas were superfluous and unnecessary Dreamspy (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat is perfectly correct. We can cite an even higher authority than Fowler: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth … And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". English writers use a comma where it is helpful to the reader by way of avoiding ambiguity. My stock example is "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where the comma removes any momentary suggestion of a figure called Joyce Beckett. But otherwise in BrE we stick to the form familiar from Shakespeare to Wodehouse, from the Lyttelton/Hart-Davis Letters to the Oxford English Dictionary ("Over the next four decades work on the Dictionary continued"). The nonsense taught by American schoolteachers is on a par with the superstitions about split infinitives. I learn with dismay that it is beginning to infect children in English primary schools, but let us resist it, and stick to traditional English usage for as long as possible. (As a passing side issue, there may be another BrE-v-AmE point above: I don't know how it is in America, but in Britain "With all due respect" is regarded as a not-too-veiled insult, as anyone familiar with Yes, Minister knows, but that is by the bye). SchroCat's version is correct. Tim riley talk 08:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even in American English, a comma after the introductory clause is optional. On Wikipedia if an established article uses a consistent and acceptable optional grammatical or punctuation style, do not change these optional styles unless you are largely rewriting an article to, say, bring it from Start class to GA class with greatly improved referencing. Changing optional styles most definitely does not give "due respect" to the regular editors who have begun, improved and maintained the article to date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going to start a Third Opinion request when I saw the message on Robert McClenon's talk page, but it looks like somebody else must have already done that. Thank you to the many editors who took the time to weigh in here. I must say that I respectfully disagree with, well, all of you lol. But I will respect consensus and leave these commas out. As for "with all due respect", I'm sorry that some people view it as an insult. I assure you that when I say it, I mean it sincerely. Please AGF (we've talked about this, SchroCat, remember?). I will do my best not to use it in any future interactions with editors who have mentioned their aversion to the phrase. SchroCat, please work on your civility. It would be of great benefit to the Wikipedia Community. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GrammarDamner, piss off with your comments about other people's approach to editing. Focused on the topic rather than attempting to patronise people with your "advice", people get pissed off with sanctimonious crap at the best of times. And it's not for you to disagree with anything: you were entirely in the wrong about the way you use commas in British English articles. If you don't understand that, then don't edit British English articles, and when someone points out to you that you are in error, don't just keep on saying the opposite when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gently, SchroCat! Yes, it's obvious GrammarDamner doesn't know what he/she is talking about in re BrE, but he/she has withdrawn, with Parthian shots that may be a touch passive-aggressive but are of no great consequence. Tim riley talk 17:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passive-aggressive Parthian shots? Tim riley, please AGF. I was not trying to take a shot at anyone. I do not view this debate as having some sort of scoreboard. I was trying to tell SchroCat that civility is important and helps the collaborative process of Wikipedia. If you think I'm the only editor that feels this way, then you should take a quick look at Talk:No Time to Die#Grammar/commas. GrammarDamner (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What horse shit. The ignorance by a few people on that page shows nothing, but as you've ignored requests about inappropriate comma use before, I see little chance of any change in you only editing to your personal preference. AGF only works when there is reason it should: I see little evidence that you will take on board some clear messages. Putting sanctimonious lecturettes on pages will only ever piss people off, but that's another message that won't sink in either. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first off, that page shows that you repeatedly use profane language and ask other editors to AGF for you while you refuse to do the same. Second, yes, you found a disagreement I had with another editor regarding a comma. If you had bothered to look just a little deeper, you would have found that that editor and I came to an agreement here. I think my user name and user page make it pretty clear that I'm passionate about proper grammar (my own opinion of it), but I also think that my interactions with you here and at No Time to Die should make it clear that above all I value and respect consensus here at Wikipedia. When consensus tells me I'm wrong, I respectfully state that I disagree and move on. I've already told you that I'll do my best to remember to not add Oxford commas to BrEng articles. Does that not show some change on my part? I don't hold any animosity or grudges towards the editors I've disagreed with. SchroCat, I see that you are clearly an experienced and important editor on Wikipedia. While I do feel you need a warning about civility, please know that above all else I appreciate your contributions to the project. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please take on board, among many, many other things, that swearing has sweet FA to do with civility or assuming good faith: you need to stop conflating the two. Secondly, the fact that you've bludgeoned an unnecessary serial comma into one article does not mean that you are right to bludgeon it into other articles. Your takeaway lesson from the Crichton discussion on your talk page should have been that you shouldn't piss around with the style of commas already in use. You are doing it solely on your preference for one style of comma over another. You were clearly told, for example, in the No Time to Die discussion of the Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style#Oxford comma guidance on comma use: "Do not change the form of standard English adopted by an article without good reason" (bolded in the original advice) and yet here you are, at another article, changing it again. (BTW, this advice is also in the MOS:RETAIN guideline, and has bene reaffirmed in a few ArbCom decisions too). No pun meant, but it seems you are a serial offender at changing the existing style into something you want. I see no evidence of any change, so yes, my levels of AGF as bloody low when it comes to repeated patterns behaviour after numerous explanations and requests to stop. Thirdly, you need to try AGF too. When a native speaker of one of the variants tells you that what you are doing is wrong, don't edit war back to your preferred version as the first step. Take on board that maybe, just maybe, the native speaker knows a damned sight more than you do. This thread should be a salutary lesson in that. I still don't think you'll alter your future behaviour though. (and yes, that's me not AGF, but given you've shown no likelihood to change so far, I think I'm on safe ground with the assumption). - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, there is so much to take in there, it's hard to decide where to begin. You talk of an interaction from almost a year ago, and you say that I'm not changing, but as I've pointed out, I definitely am changing. Like I said, when we interacted, I edited an article, it was reverted, we discussed, and I went with consensus. Is that accurate? Serial offender? I'm confused. I need to AGF??? Please provide diffs where I didn't AGF or had any civility issues. Because I actually want to know what I did wrong. And thank you again for your help. GrammarDamner (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can parse all the information you need from what I have written. You edit warred here on a subject you don't fully grasp and dug your heels in with all sorts of nonsense about it being a hard and fast rule of all variants of English. When you're being told something about British English by a British English speaker, you need to AGF that maybe s/he has a point. Go look it up - and not in a US grammar book, but a British English one (this goes for all the other variants of English too - I am sure you think you know US English well enough, but it's bloody different in every other part of the world, and you don't know diddly squat about those versions). You were as wrong on that point as you were on demanding serial commas on No Time to Die. You've been told (a year ago) that MOS:OXFORD does not give you a right to change comma style, yet that was what you were claiming on that article. It's time to move on - I hope the lesson gets through that you don't know the detail of other variants, and you'd be advised to steer clear of them if you insist on forcing your preference where it is out of place. WP:ENGVAR is as much about style and punctuation as it is about spelling. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I can't parse much from what you've written. You continue to bring up things that aren't relevant to the discussion, and you refuse to even acknowledge your civility and profanity issues. I've already said that I will do my best to adhere to BrEng policies, yet you continue to respond with profanity and incivility. I thank you for pointing out the intricate points of BrEng, and I will adhere to them. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FFS... time to move on to something useful. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Davie_(British_Army_officer)&oldid=1206890652"