User talk:DocRushing

There is a Greyhound Corporation article which could probably use the addition of all the information you have included in your related Greyhound articles. Since the Corp article is the foundation of many others, it would probably help to completely rewrite it to bring things into sync with everything else you have done. If you feel it is wrongly titled, it should be moved to The Greyhound Corporation. I can do the move. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion.

I heartily agree.

I've already begun drafting exactly what you described.

When I finish that piece, I'll post it.

Yes, the title really should be The Greyhound Corporation – with the word "the" with a capital T – because the word "the" was an integral part of the official name of the :corporate entity.

If you wish, please move the present one.

I've also begun pieces on both the original National Trailways Bus System and the Continental Trailways.

I hope to continue by adding more articles about several more Greyhound regional companies.

Thanks again for your note.

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and articles relinked. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I just got into this particular topic last night but I just couldn't believe people were getting this wrong. It seems pretty clear to me. And not a Navy man, but a sailor (sailboats). Like all things water. I have a brother in law who is a submariner (don't remember the boat, he's out of Norfolk, nuclear officer, working on chief).Kchinger (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you too. After the many not so friendly messages I have received here at wikipedia, yours was a joy to receive. Interesting website over there @ bluehounds and greyhounds! Carriearchdale (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie:  Thanks very much for the cupcake and the kind words.  I'll give you a more responsive answer at your talk page.  Cheers!  Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what if the date of his death can be found elsewhere in the article?
Obviously the approximate date is relevant to when he stopped working on his (unfinished) book, since that makes clear that he was working on it from the late '70s to the early '90s -- a long time.
Or are you attempting to cover something up about his biography because you don't like the way indisputable facts might reflect on Haley?
Maybe a course in Editing 101 would help.
Daqu (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You asked whether I've tried "to cover something up about his biography because you don't like the way indisputable facts might reflect on Haley".

Exactly what's your point?  Cover up something?  Might reflect on Haley?  To what do you refer?  What do you imply?  What do you mean?

You appear to feel quite confident of yourself.

Regardless of the nature of your objection or motivation, it's not OK for you to express yourself to me or anyone else, at the Wikipedia or elsewhere, as you did to me.

If and when any of us at the Wikipedia find it necessary to disagree with each other or one another, we have a duty to disagree without behaving in a disagreeable way.

In the future please refrain from making such rude, abrasive, impudent, or impertinent comments to others.

Although I continue to take occasional refresher classes and seminars in my work, no, despite your suggestion, I no longer need to take a 101 course in editing.

That's because I'm not a newbie or an untrained or uneducated person; I'm a professional with a handful of credentials and qualifications, including extensive practical experience.  I've long worked as a writer, rewriter, ghostwriter, editor, and proofreader in real life (since 1953), as a professor who has taught grammar, composition, and communication at the college level (since 1977), as a user who has taken part at the Wikipedia (since 2008), and as one who created, owns, and continues to maintain and expand his own website, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds (since 2009).

Cordially and sincerely,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi DocRushing. I always like to see more of the person changing/ reverting my edits. So, a sincere hats off for "Atticus's". I have spent ages trying to make people understand that construction. About 99% can't it. I need to resort to engravings on plaques such as "St. James's" before I get the feeling that something is sinking in ... and not always ... ;-) PS: please see my edit summary on "organised-crime". PS2: I also have very strong and vivid memories of Greyhound (here in South Africa). Have a great Sunday. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Doc; "farsi" is NOT a specific variety of Persian, just as "deutsch" is not a specific variety of German, or "italiano" is not a specific variety of Italian, or "espanol" is not a specific variety of Spanish, or "al-Arabiya" is not a specific variety of Arabic, or "Magyar" is not a specific variety of Hungarian ... ... ... need I go on?? I have not yet again undone your revision in the list of JAG episodes; but if this explanation makes any sense at all ... could you please go ahead and change it back to "Persian". Persian is simply the English word for "farsi". So ... if you're writing something in Persian, you use the word "farsi"... if in English, you use the word Persian. Thanks and have a great day. and ... please ... don't attempt to tell me what "farsi" is or is not ... I'm Iranian !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.58.197 (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous unregistered user at 60.234.58.197:

You appear to have begun a one-person campaign, which runs completely against the conventional wisdom among language experts and language educators.  That is, you're trying to swim upstream, and you're all by yourself.

Please note well that the words Farsi, Deutsch, Italiano, and Español, when written in English text, are not common nouns but rather proper nouns, so they require not lowercase initial letters but rather uppercase ones.

Please note well also that style books and grammar books uniformly advise us to use only one ellipsis mark at a time and only one exclamation point (bang) at a time.

Despite your poorly informed personal opinion, Farsi is indeed the name of a particular variety of Persian; it's the one spoken in Iran.

If you had taken the trouble to consult the article about the Persian language right here at the Wikipedia, you would have learned that there are three major names, among others, for three major varieties, among others, of the Persian language; those names are Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki.

Further, according to that article, Farsi is the variety of Persian as the natives speak it in Iran, Dari is the variety of Persian as the natives speak it in Afghanistan, and Tajiki is the variety of Persian as the natives speak it in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Again:  Yes, according to those who know, Farsi is the variety of Persian spoken among the people of Iran.

Please recall that the fictional Sarah MacKenzie at JAG, while speaking English, has repeatedly said that she speaks Farsi.

Some years ago one of my fellow college professors made a point of explaining to me that he speaks Farsi because he is a native of Iran.

One of the most highly respected and authoritative concentrations of expertise in foreign languages in the USA is the Defense Language Institute (DLI), especially its West Coast branch, in Monterey, California, of which I'm a graduate.

The DLI makes clear (for example, here) that it teaches not merely Persian but rather the particular version of Persian known as Farsi.

You mentioned that you're Persian.

In what way?

Where were you born?

Of what nationality (or nationalities) are your parents?

Do you speak Farsi or any other variety of Persian?

If so, how long have you done so?

If you wish to continue taking part at the Wikipedia, please register and please adopt a user name.

Even if you do not register, please anyway sign each of your posts at the end by typing four tildes (~) without spaces or punctuation.

Further, if you continue to edit articles at the Wikipedia, please provide an edit summary for each one.

Best wishes,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Doc, thanks for your note on my talk page. Let me start by saying I think you are doing some useful work in updating the episode summaries for the West Wing as you re-watch it (I assume you are enjoying doing so - I too have found it a show that stands up to multiple re-watchings). I think your focus on accuracy and precision is admirable, but I would humbly suggest that this perhaps at times leads towards overstatement - some of the sumamries could be seen as heading towards too much detail per WP:TVPLOT.

In terms of the wikilinks, it did seem to me that there was starting to be an awful lot of blue text in the summaries, and so I was trying to follow the guidlines at WP:OLINK - first, that a link should generally appear only once in an article, thus characters/acotrs listed under the cast section do not need to be linked again in the summaries; and secondly, that everyday words understood by most readers in context should not be linked. Obviously, what fits this criteria can be debated, but when it was getting to the point that words like "sailing" and "fever" were linked, I decided to do some pruning. I would propose that in the context of an article about the West Wing words like "congress" and "Republican" do not require links under that guideline either. You said you felt I had been inconsistent and there were two others links I should have removed. Unfortunately I am not sure which you mean, although I accept it is highly likely I have not been totally consistent. You can remove those links yourself if you think they should be removed, or point them out specifically to me and I will do so.

In terms of grammar, as I'm sure you know this is an area which will continue to provoke discussion and debate, and there do seem to be some differences between what is acceptable on wikipedia and what some may consider "proper" or "correct". For example, the naming of the WP articles on Fundraising and Boys' choir would seem to suggest to me that these are the preferable variants of the terms to use here, despite you feeling that they are not technically correct. The reality of the way WP works means we probably have to accept that some of our grammar "bugbears" will not always be corrected - I personally dislike intensely the use of a pronoun when it has no antecedent in that paragraph but on some articles I have been reverted with "it looks better this way" :) Personally, with the WW episode summaries I have been more concerned about readability for the average reader over some of the nuances of how participles and compound nouns "should" be used - the English language being an ever changing beast!

Regards Melcous (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and thanks for your cordial and congenial tone.

Please forgive my delay in answering.  On Friday and Saturday I've been out of town (in Indianapolis) and out of touch.

You and I are are remarkably in step with each other; our differences are small and a matter of degree.

Thanks for your kind words about my work on the summaries of the episodes.

Yes, I adore The West Wing.  A combination of circumstances prevented me from watching (or made it difficult for me to watch regularly) not only TWW but also several movies (especially The American President) and other TV series (JAG, NCIS, and its derivatives) the first time around.

However, after my schedule allowed me to slow down and spend more time at home, I started watching The American President, TWW, JAG, and the trilogy of NCIS series.

Previously I watched The American President three times, TWW twice, and NCIS (x3) twice.

At the IMDb.com website, for JAG and each NCIS series, almost every plot outline and plot summary is my work.

Recently I watched The American President the fourth time, and I started watching TWW the third time.

When I started TWW this time, for no particular reason I decided to edit or otherwise improve the episode summaries at the Wikipedia rather than the IMDb; so here we are.

Having rattled all that inconsequential preliminary stuff, I'll respond to your comments more-or-less in order.

You referred me to WP:TVPLOT.  I share your concern about the length of the summaries, and I've given much attention to that; I've tried hard to exclude anything without justification.  That standard in the MoS says, "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words".

Well, I just counted the words in the summary of "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet", my longest one, and I saw 307 words, which is slightly below the midpoint (350) of that suggested range (200-500), which falls squarely within the "rough guide".

On the other hand, my shortest summary, for "Five Votes Down", contains only 75 words.

Still, though, I agree with your concern about length, and I'll keep that point in mind while I continue with my future work.

"Blue text", you mentioned.  I agree with your concern about that too.  I've tried hard to avoid real overdoing, but maybe I've overdone that anyway.

But please consider this viewpoint:  Not all our readers are native speakers of English, not all of them are familiar with the social, cultural, religious, and political environments in the USA, and not all of our own citizens in my homeland are well informed in those areas (and many other areas).  For the benefit of those readers, who might wish to increase or refresh their knowledge and understanding about some of the terms involved in those matters, I've sought to make it easy for them to satisfy their intellectual curiosity (if any) about those concepts.  In the past I've served, and in the present I serve, as a resource person for a number of people improving their ability in English – people in or from China, Taiwan, Poland, Italy, Ecuador, Guatemala, and a few other places.  When I think about our potential readers at the Wikipedia, I tend to compare them with my friends in or from those other nations, and I tend to anticipate what questions they might ask of me during an exchange in person or by e-mail.

Again, though, I readily concede that I may have overdone that.

I'll take care of the two (or maybe more) links (for characters and actresses) you left behind when you removed the others.

Yes, I agree too about one link, the first mention, for each item; however, I indulged in transforming that principle into the first mention in the summaries rather than the article as a whole; but I've yielded on that point.

On matters of grammar and composition I try hard to follow the Wikipedia MoS; when that source does not cover a particular question, I seek advice from the Chicago Manual or some other authoritative source.

On spelling, spacing, and hyphenation I rely on the single foremost reference in use throughout almost (with a few oddball exceptions) the entire publishing industry in the USA; that's the 11th edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, known as Web11 to authors, writers, editors, proofreaders, and others throughout the USA.

When differences exist at the Wikipedia, they do so often or usually because of certain stubborn users ("schoolyard bullies") who have forced their way, but who are not well qualified in grammar or composition.

Although there is a growing but still minor tendency to write fundraising (without a hyphen), Web11 says that fund-raising is still the correct form.  The growing tendency will eventually become the standard form, and I agree with it, but fund-raising is still the standard form despite the form of the title of the article here.

Both boychoir and boys' choir are correct and acceptable terms; however, in the USA we recognize a difference between them.  A "boys' choir" consists of boys in a choir, which may or may not adhere to the European artistic traditions of a "boychoir" (usually) or a "boy choir" (sometimes).  That is, boychoir has a more narrow and precise meaning than does boys' choir.  When someone here reads of a "boychoir", we know exactly the nature of the choir, whereas, if someone here reads of a "boys' choir", we do not recognize the intent of the writer without an external reference.  For example, a brand-new movie in the USA, about a treble boy singer (a "choirboy"), bears the title of Boychoir [sic].

Good for you and your emphasis on relative pronouns without antecedents!  I concur.  When I correct one of those, if the result is not satisfactory (not smooth enough), I often just rewrite so as to avoid the whole thing until I do get a smooth and readable result.

By the way, when I write about grammar and composition, I do so as a seasoned professional.

Although I'm a retired professor, I've long worked in a parallel concurrent area.

In 1953 I began as a writer, rewriter, ghostwriter, editor, and proofreader (first on student publications, eventually as an editor in chief of a newspaper at a major university), and I've continued in both commercial and academic publishing.

Also I have a website of my own, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds, which I created, and which I continue to develop as time allows.

[In one section of my home page, entitled "The Reason for This Website", I describe some of my early experiences at the Wikipedia.]

In 2010 I belatedly retired from full-time work, but I still teach part-time (including English composition and remedial English) at a large university in South Bend, Indiana, and I continue to edit, rewrite, ghostwrite, advise, and proofread, all at the professional level.

For example, two weeks ago I finished editing a 500-page book on a technical subject.

Whenever I say anything about usage, grammar, or composition, please take me seriously.

Now let's proceed as friends, and let's continue to interact with each other in a cordial and respectful manner.

Where do you teach, and what do you teach?

As always, best wishes,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Doc, nice to hear more about you and I look forward to working together and proceeding as friends. I have found one of the challenges of WP to be that it seems interactions with other editors can very easily turn adversarial, which is perhaps unsurprising given our first "meetings" are usually when we are correcting or changing one another's work, not to mention the de-personalisation of this format, but it doesn't leave a great taste in the mouth. It's helpful to be reminded that we are all working in good faith, and share common goals and interests. So I really appreciate your cordial tone too - it's good to recognise we share similar interests even if we don't always agree on every outworking of them :)

Sorry, I avoided your question about where and what I teach because as well as its down sides, I appreciate the anonymity of this space, and working in a fairly small field/city, giving too many details is akin to "outing" myself, so I have chosen to limit what personal information I reveal. Suffice to say, my main area of research and teaching is not English, but grammar is certainly an interest of mine, and I have had the privilege of doing some English-as-a-second-language teaching both overseas and at home as a by-product of my other teaching work.

And yes, I absolutely will take what you say about grammar and usage seriously, I could clearly tell from your edit summaries the diligence with which you were editing! The minor quibbles we have are more likely due to either differences in regional usage, or differences in acceptance of changes to the language as it used in everyday contexts.

Finally, just one more point on WP:TVPLOT - my reading is that the 200-500 word guideline is for an article on an individual episode, whereas for season articles it recommends 100-200 for each episode summary, which generally you are still fine with, but, as I said above, perhaps sometimes pushing the boundaries of. Are you planning to do the next few seasons of the WW as you watch them? If so, I will look forward to it with interest. I don't have time to undertake such a project myself, so do really appreciate your work, and hope you don't mind me chipping in here and there as I find it easier with the time I have to make minor tweaks and suggestions rather than start from scratch (in other words, perhaps I make a better copyeditor than I do author!)

Regards, Melcous (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another note.  I enjoy learning more about you and your views, and I appreciate your advice.

If you have any interest, please check my description of my rude reception when I arrived at the Wikipedia and began to work here.  Despite the supposed protocol of welcoming newcomers, guiding them, and refraining from biting them, I received not even one word of welcome but instead lots of rudeness, impudence, ugliness, rejection, and hostility, partly because of my refusal to kowtow to several of the schoolyard bullies.

You mentioned regional differences in usage, such as "chili" (with one L) versus "chilli" (with two Ls).  Here's another:  In the US we do not "take" meetings; instead we hold, conduct, or attend them (or maybe skip or avoid them), but we do not "take" them.  However, while recalling that the staffers do not truly "hold" meetings with the fringe groups in "The Crackpots and These Women" but rather receive them and listen to them, I avoided that conflict by writing instead that they "meet with" them.

Last time I overlooked sending you another link about boychoirs, so here it is.

Yes, now I see the range of 100-200 words for episode summaries in the season articles, so I'll take that to heart and try hard to follow it.

I'm an enthusiastic Anglophile, and I adore the King's English (or the Queen's English).  Not many years ago Marda, my dearly beloved wife, and I lived and worked awhile near Newcastle upon Tyne, and we thoroughly enjoyed doing so.

Yes, my present plan is to continue watching TWW again in its entirety and to continue improving the summaries (unless a schoolyard bully comes along and again makes things too unpleasant).

If you've not watched The King's Speech, I strongly encourage to do so.  I've watched it three times.  Both the story and the flick are beautiful.  It features an Aussie in a most favorable light!

Cheers!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Great, I look forward to you updating the WW articles as you go through. I have indeed seen the King's Speech - great film. Here's an interesting one for you though - we would never say "take" a meeting in Australian English, it is only something I have heard from US television (including the West Wing, I'm pretty sure Josh uses the term regularly)! But yes, easy to avoid using as you have done. Regards, Melcous (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this messy edit yesterday, I was doing it on the phone and I place the topic as Edit summary. I repeat it then.

In To kill a mockingbird I changed it because when reading I had to go back to the top to know who Boo was. Do we add it in parentheses? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 12:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the plot summary again.  I've revised it slightly.  That seems to take care of the problem.

Thanks for asking.

Best wishes,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not post editor's personal information that they have no posted on-wiki before. On this site, it is considered harassment and may result in a block of this account.--v/r - TP 00:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged "outing" was NOT an outing.

The user name Oknazevad is quite clear and obvious to anyone who looks at it, wonders about it, and looks at it a second time.

It's simply Dave Zanko in reverse.

If Dave truly wishes to conceal his identity, then he would do well to find or create a less obvious user name.

Dave's snarky, belligerent, and dictatorial reply to me – six years ago – was the last straw for me.

Previously I had tolerated several instances of rudeness, foolishness, ignorance, and stupidity from several amateurs, including students and dropouts.

Since then I've refrained from making any further contribution to Wikipedia.

Never again shall I write or edit any textual content here.

Instead (in my spare time) I've concentrated on rebuilding and growing my own website (after someone badly hacked it, compromised it, and contaminated it).

I'm here today just to update several links (here) to my website – at Bluehounds and Redhounds.

Cheers!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]