User talk:John of Reading

I am away for a few days. Need help? You'd better try the Help desk.

This is John of Reading's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Merger discussion for Environmental impact of wind power

An article that you have been involved in editing—Environmental impact of wind power—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that's just one of the many articles where I only fixed a typo. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AFD tip

Thanks for pointing out that the AFD was already included in the Template:ArticleHistory for Talk:The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise! I've never actually seen that was an option before - I guess the kind of articles I typically play with (with AFD and PROD histories) don't merit Article Histories! I'm amazed at how many people follow such an quiet obscure talk page. I only found myself here by accident, down the rabbit hole reading about Elliot Gould. I can only assume that User:Cirt alerted you after I pinged them. Nice to know that old users are never really gone. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Thank you for getting back to me. I happened to have the page watchlisted - I stumbled across the article a long while ago, and enjoyed the video so much I've kept it watchlisted as a reminder. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential typo

Searching for insource:/ set of [A-Za-z]+ (a|we)re / seems to give a good amount of grammatical errors (though some are certainly false positives). Thought you might want to take a look at this. Thanks, 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Yes, that looks interesting. I've added it to my todo list. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another search: insource:/Another [A-Za-z ]+, is /. I fixed some already. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: I've changed at least a hundred "set of ... were" phrases, but the more I look at them the less convinced I am. See English plurals#Singulars with collective meaning treated as plural. I'll leave this one for now. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks, when I read my original comment after getting your ping I realised there might be some British English exceptions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Berkhamsted

Hi. A page you have contributed to, Berkhamsted, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thank you, but my only involvement was to copyedit one phrase back in 2019. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bling for you

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Because I can always count on you to find and fix my duplicate words. You truly do make a difference. Rublamb (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb: Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surplant

Just noticed this edit - funnily enough it is how I was taught to write the word, perhaps illustrating not just my age, but rather old-fashioned education. Personally, I prefer it because it retains its origins in French and Latin (over (fr:sur) something rooted (la:plantare), ie displacing) rather than the more ambiguous relation to the word supple (which indicates submissiveness rather than displacement). Nevertheless, certainly accept it is not common usage. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Sadly, even my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary doesn't list "surplant", which suggests it has never been regarded as a valid spelling. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More of an OED person myself: "The form surplant probably arose by association with English formations in sur- prefix; the same form also appears occasionally from the end of the 19th cent." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Touché! -- John of Reading (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]