User talk:Trweiss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Trweiss, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:34, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

1 expos/nationals debate
2 REO Speedwagon
3 Visual Basic Wikibook
4 List of words having different meanings in British and American English
5 MIDI controller
6 Comment please

[edit] expos/nationals debate

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] REO Speedwagon

Appreciate your comments on the band, REO Speedwagon, and hope you'll continue to contribute on this subject, despite your frustrations. You've added a lot of meat to the material. Thanks. REO157

[edit] Visual Basic Wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? The problem of non-experts editing seems less of a problem there :-) --Kjwhitefoot 07:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of words having different meanings in British and American English

Hi, Trweiss, I noticed you added some U.S. meanings to the List of words having different meanings in British and American English. I wonder, though, about pitch, which is one of those words with dozens of meanings. I'm an American, so I can't vouch for the British meanings of these words, but I can well imagine that the meanings you added to the American side might just as well apply to the British side. Do you know that these are American-only meanings of pitch? If not, I wonder if you might consider reverting the additions you made, on grounds that this article is intended to highlight the differences between the two languages, and not to be an exhaustive list of all the meanings of these words.—GraemeMcRae^talk 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also an American. I imagine that you're correct that most of the US meanings of pitch that I added are the same in Brit. English. Your point about highlighting differences is well taken, but many, many entries include comments such as +US meanings or +British meanings and many entries duplicate meanings. Before I started making changes, there were already several supposedly British meanings of pitch which are by no means uniquely British. ("Sticky black substance" is also an American English meaning. "Attempt to persuade" is listed on both sides. A "playing field for sports" is certainly understood, if not used, in the US.) So, in short, I actually thought I was being consistent with what is already there, not breaking the rules. The way it stands is not incorrect, pitch is used in the US in every way that I added. I think it's up to the other side to say, "we use it that way, too." I imagine the the article wouldn't be nearly so rich if only people who were intimately familiar with both flavors of English contributed. The article itself says it's incomplete. But if you feel strongly about your opinion, I don't mind if you move my meanings to the talk page and ask for feedback from those knowledgeable about British English and put them back once you've got it.--Trweiss 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. No, I don't feel strongly about it, and I understand now that you are respectful of the intent of this article, so you're right -- we "yanks" should let the British side weigh in on this, rather than making any more changes.—GraemeMcRae^talk 07:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)