User talk:Mclay1

drier, dryer
What is the evidence you can share about the relative frequency in the US vs. elsewhere of the two spellings in each of the four or five senses of the noun and for the comparative of the adjective? DCDuring TALK 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm English/Australian and I've never seen the spelling 'dryer' before. Mclay1 07:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in common use in the UK for the noun: devices (and materials ?) that dry. DCDuring TALK 10:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Same in Australia. Forgot about that one. But the adjective is always drier in my experience. Mclay1 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I personally consider it a mistake to use the "dryer" spelling for the adjective in US English, but it may be too widespread to be so marked. I also wouldn't use the "drier" spelling for the agent noun, but it too probably isn't an error in US English. I check regional spelling differences by sense using BNC, COCA, and Google News (not the archive). DCDuring TALK 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitions
Please do not make every word a link in a definition. It is not supported by WT:ELE. Thank you. Rædi Stædi Yæti {- skriv til mig -} 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Where does it say you shouldn't do that? Seems logical to do it. It can't hurt, unless you don't like blue. Mclay1 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ameba
You need to stop undoing edits by people who know what they're doing. If you disagree, discuss it first. In this case, you are quite clearly wrong, and you should avoid making any claims about relative commonness of spellings in American English that cannot be backed up with actual fact. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you are very clearly wrong on both counts. This edit makes no sense and has two full stops. And ameba is not the standard spelling of amoeba, hence why the main definition and the Wikipedia article are at amoeba. It may be the standard spelling in the US, but that's not what the editor changed it to. They clearly did not know what they were doing and I don't appreciate the tone of your message. Mclay1 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, both entries were problematic. That was not a reason to undo edits that in one case removed incorrect information, and in the other added correct information. You could have fixed the parts that needed fixing, as I have now done. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted a bad edit. You could have just removed the incorrect information rather than reverting my edit then manually redoing part of it. Why do you think the information was incorrect anyway? I can find significantly more results on American sites for amoeba over ameba. On the talk page, there is already a discussion about it with three users. Two of them think amoeba is more common. The other provided some sources to say the opposite; however, some of the links no longer work, and one of them says the opposite of what he's trying to prove. Mclay1 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The point is that you should fix and discuss rather than just undo an edit. Yes, I see that I should have just edited your version at and have now done so; thank you for pointing that out. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)