User talk:MFH/phil

Hi, this is the subpage of my user talk for general thoughts, philosophical, epistemological and similar discussions (from about usage of punctuation marks to the meaning of life and the universe).

Welcome

(continued from "Welcome" section of the main user talk page.)

Thanks for your "Welcome"

Thanks for your welcoming message... In fact, it came so quickly after my "post" that I first thought it was done by a robot.

By the way, it was a real welcome, not a "welcome". :)

In some sense, my double quotes correspond to the double braces you put around "welcome"...(I didn't know that it is "current" to create an other user's Talk page by putting this template on top.)

But I used also "welcoming message" without quotes, and this second occurrence refers to your "real" welcome.

(Sorry, can't help putting quotes around words whose meaning should be thought about twice... Can a "welcome" be "real"? I will look up the definitions of these words...) MFH 20:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I exaggerated a bit. Quotes are of course very appropriate in many circumstances. Oleg Alexandrov 21:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

about quotation marks...(cont'd)

About quotation marks, the same remark as above. Putting quotation marks changes the meaning of a word.

I know. MFH

When you say that I "welcome" you, it looks as if you think I did not mean it.

I didn't say thank you for "welcoming" me, but thank you for the "Welcome": For me, that's not the same, and I didn't want to express what you say it looks like. I'm sorry if you got it wrong. I thought adding thank you for the welcoming message (w/o quotes!) would make this clear.MFH

Same for "sequence", if it is a true sequence, it must not have quotation marks. Oleg Alexandrov 18:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not' a true sequence! That's why the quotes.

In fact, for me, the double quotes have 2 meanings:

1. quotation (citation), or "the word (or phrase) ...", and
2. something like "so to say", or "what could be called ...". MFH

More replies

OK, you have a very good point. I would still prefer

Thank you for your welcome

to

Thank you for your "welcome"

but that's debatable.

About the "sequence" thing. I think you should have rather written a short paragraph before the "See also" section, rather trying to fit it all in a bullet point in "See also". But this is again debateable, and actually is a matter of style.

Yes. Is there some "official" advice about this? I find it not so bad if the links in the "see also" section contain a very brief hint (that should not exceed a line even on a palmtop display), if they're not self-explaining.

There is no official advice as far as I am aware of. This is why on Wikipedia on has to be always willing to talk, and if necessary compromise or accept different opinions. Oleg Alexandrov 02:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So let me back off and say that I exaggerated with my remarks. Good we got to the root of it though. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 22:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I start to notice that one (me, at least) is never careful enough when making the first steps on a new kind of "communication media"...MFH 01:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)