Is it acceptable to say, ‘Me, I myself personally have never tried golf, if you ask me?’ --96.40.43.34 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. "If you ask me" or "if you want my opinion" is usually appended to the expression of some (usually negative) opinion: He's the worst leader we've ever had, if you ask me. So, it doesn't belong at all with this sentence, which is a factual declaration. As for the rest of it, I suppose some context could be contrived to make it plausible, but it's too much emphasis. "I myself" would be quite enough for most occasions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some one ought to tell De La Soul that... --Jayron32 11:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are better ways to create emphasis, especially if you want to be funny: "I've never played golf. I don't know anyone who ever played golf. I've never even seen a golf course, a golf club, or even a tee. I'm more likely to shoot a birdie or an eagle with a gun than with a golf club. When I hear somebody say they shot a bogie I think they played a bad guy in a movie with Humphrey Bogart. I think golf carts exist solely for old folks to drive around in retirement communities." StuRat (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other verbs as alternatives of "create" in the sentence "A wind created ripples on the lake"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.163.166 (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try using a thesaurus and looking up create. "Generated" is one that comes to mind. If you want to sound more poetic, you could also say "gave birth to". StuRat (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wind is often said to "whip up" waves, but perhaps that's too violent for ripples (unless you're going for ironic humor). How about "stir up"? Or even "put". —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One could also simply say "A wind rippled the lake." Deor (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caused, made165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an entry such as St. Cloud State University is included in a list, is it alphabetized under "S - T" (exactly as it is spelled), or under "S - A" (as if the word "Saint" were spelled out)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are various ways of alphabetizing, and different publications or repositories use different sets of rules. "St. Cloud" could be alphabetized either of the ways you describe. A second issue is whether "St. Cloud" would come before or after "Saintala", and again, it might go either way depending on the rules in use. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that alphabetizing it as if it were Saint would be most usual. --Viennese Waltz 16:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leading to endless confusion with St Kilda ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is doing the alphabetising? Lots of software doesn't know what abbreviations are, so "St." gets alphabetised as "St"; my Windows machine lists documents "...Spencer, St. Joseph, Starke, Steuben, Sullivan..." Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I am essentially asking for Wikipedia purposes. I was editing the following page: SCSU. I wanted to put all of the items in alphabetical order. And I wasn't sure what we do with an item like St. Cloud State University. Hence, on that particular list, where exactly should it fall? Does Wikipedia have some rule, policy, or standard? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any site-wide standard; for each article containing any sort of alphabetic list, I believe it's a matter of consensus between the editors involved. But when it comes to our article category system, the default is that the first word of the title determines the order, and that includes the word St. Thus, St. Cloud State University would be sorted before John Stanford (sorts as Stanford, John), because St. precedes Stanford. Similarly, MacDonald and all other Macs come before McDonald and all other Mcs. And words like Madison, Mahler, Major, Malcolm etc all come in between Mac and Mc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, but no consensus was reached.

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 5#Alphabetization and collation (January and February 2009)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Alphabetization and collation (January and February 2009)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Question on alphabetizing (April 2009)

See also Wikipedia:Alphabetical order.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you would think that this would be a relatively non-controversial issue, one for which consensus would be easy to achieve. And, I assume, this issue is not addressed in the MOS, then. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correctly. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Organization took me to Collation#Alphabetical order, which in turn took me to Alphabetical order. Nowhere is there any mention of how Wikipedia does or should do things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on 20 June 1815 (two days after the Battle of Waterloo (18 June 1815) and the day after the end of the Battle of Wavre (18–19 June 1815), two Prussian Corps caught up with the rear-guard of Grouchy's wing of the French Army of the North near the Belgium town of Namur. There were two separate columns of Prussians following the French:

Thielemann's III Corps was advancing from Gembloux to Namur (see Google map of route)

Pirch I's II Corps on the main road from Sombreffe to Namur (see Google map of route -- this is the modern highway but it gives a good idea of the advance.)

Elements of the Prussian III Corps cavalry engaged the French near the village of Fallize, and then advanced as far as Château de Flawinne, meanwhile the Prussian II Corps attacked the French at the village of Flawinne and drove the French back into the suburbs of Namur.

The names used in the 19th century English histories seem to be taken from Prussian reports and histories, and although (as can be seen I have been able to translate/find in other accounts Château de Flawinne and Flawinne I have been unable to find the modern name for the village of Fallize or as German language accounts call it "Dorfe Fallize". The village was -- according to one English historian about -- 3 miles (4.8 km) from Namur, (but the Prussian sources also state 3 miles and I am not sure that a Prussian mile was at the time equivalent to an English mile) and as he Prussian III Corps cavalry were advancing along the Gembloux to Namur the action may have taken place somewhere around point A on this Google map. The only thing I can find on the modern map that could possible be it is "La Flaize" "La Falize"(see here).

However another term it might be is "la falaise" which is French for "the cliff" ....

• German source (1826)
• English source (1848)

So what I am hoping is that someone who is better as finding out old and new German place names could identify the modern equivalent of this place name for me (a clue may also be present in a French account of the skirmish and the name that they use for it).

If this is totally the wrong place to ask for help for this problem, then please let me know the best place to ask.

-- PBS (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A German source (1863) identifies it with La Falize, Rhisnes, La Bruyère, Belgium. It is about 1 mile northwest of your point A, enlarged on this google map. Read La Falize, not La Flaize--Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. "La Flaize" was of course a transposition mistake by be me (as the source indicated) -- I have struck it through and replaced it with the correct spelling.

The English language source I am using states that the Prussians (Thielemann's III Corps's cavalry and eight pieces of horse artillery) advanced rapidly down the Gembloux to Namu road and ran into "Vamdamme's III Corps' rear guard posted on the brow of the declivity at the foot of which lay the town". Looking at Google satellite pictures everything appears flat, but about 200 metres to the south west the old roads snake (an indicator that they are traversing a steep hill) and the railway goes through a cutting so this is clearly the "brow of the declivity at the foot of which lay the town". The woods that the French infantry escaped through are sill there on the slope of the "declivity". However I was hoping for some more substantial written evidence that "La Falize" one and the same place as "Fallize", as I would like to avoid speculating that they are one and the same place in an article based on my reading of a Google map. -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namur is #116 in the 1777 maps. If you do not accept the German source (1863) listed avove, there are other references to this battle spelling it La Falize or La Falize, leading to this English book with the spelling La Falize. La Falize is described and shown in the photos as a manor with buildings dating from the 16th century, so we know it was there in 1815 and such manors made good landmarks. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you those searches provide exactly the information I needed. -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]