This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Apparition11,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks without header}} to user talk pages.

Hi, many thanks for looking into the private placement agent edit I made earlier today, but I believe the line I added is relevant information to our Wikipedia readers. The banking and private placement world is one I know fairly well and Granito & Partners has recently emerged as leading the way in a new type of corporate finance - one that wishes to raise capital for projects with financial returns but also social impact. As soon as I hear about other companies Ill add them as well. But its important for the readers to know that there is a new trend in the market. I have no connections to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMichael01 ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@ PeterMichael01: The content has now been reverted by 3 separate editors. You'll need to get consensus on the talk page for the content. To gain consensus, at the bare minimum, you will need reliable, third party sources. These will have to show why it is WP:DUE a mention in the article and not just that it the company exists. As is, the blurb that is being added reads like the opening line of a press release instead of an encyclopedic statement. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So for 2017, I listed the number of discussions as 13 (see here); however, I'm having different feelings now that it should maybe be 14 because one discussion contained a sub-discussion. Probably a silly question, but do sub-discussions still count as discussions? What is your opinion? Amaury ( talk | contribs) 10:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury: I see your dilemma. I would go with 13 simply because that matches the way the wiki software counts it in the table of contents. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 14:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. Thank you as always! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Apparition11,

The tools are missing in the page /info/en/?search=Request_for_proposal I added Reqchecker that only manages coverage, maybe we could create a section in the page to provide a list of standards tools to help people.

Best Regards, Stéphan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgraviassy ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Sgraviassy: I don't see a need for it. IMHO, it is too tangentially related to have a list for that, but you are welcome to post on the article talk page and see if others agree with you. However, if we were to implement a list, the entries would need to consist only of notable (by Wikipedia standards) tools with existing articles. We would not link to external web sites or non-existing articles. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 12:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Apparition11,

Can you please clarify what you mean by "innapropriate"? The information I included was not offensive and was there to educate the readers.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by L1535 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@ L1535: The reference that you are using is not a reliable source, and judging from the fact that all of your edits are related to Lightspeed, it appears to be promotional. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 22:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I also knows it is not personal but. Ok I understand now Wikipedia's policy.

• I will not like to talk anymore about it.
• I should now make a draft first and than cite refrences. But beleive me, that person is non other than my great grandfather.
• And now inform me from where I can get a template for my userpage. Like yours.

Sultan faizan mughal ( talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Faizan shahbaz mughal: I'm not sure which template on my user page that you want, but you can click on the edit page and see all of the code it contains. Then, you can copy and modify anything you want. Also, the WP:UPDC is a great resource for user pages and aided me a lot when I designed my user page. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 50 years because you always reply on your talk page and that is not good. Your username is also Apparition11. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury: lol I considered filling out a unblock request, but being blocked for 50 years may be more beneficial to my sanity ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 04:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So just checking here, but do you hate me? Why am I asking you this? Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Of course not :) I'm very proud of the fine editor that you've become. Why are you asking me this? :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Start here and go until there are no more next links to click. Won't take very long. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury: lol I kinda doubt that "so many editors hate you", but it sure seems like there is an IP who does ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly. User talk:Widr#Talk page, User talk:BU Rob13#Interesting situation. See also the IP's contributions. I feel so hated. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Amaury: Definitely seems to be persistent :) I guess at least when he's preoccupied with you, it keeps him out of article space. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 13:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that the Subnetwork Access Protocol (SNAP) article is of low priority, but the first few sentences seem to have poor English grammar. I made suggestions for improvement on the talk page. I stated that I was not an expert in SNAP and I asked that an editor review my changes before I edited the article. Someone went through the changes and seemed to have accepted some and left some of the original sentences stand (Particularly the first sentence). I am somewhat at a loss at what to do now. I can post the things that seem to have been accepted but that does not cure the entire problem. Any advice? Nicodemus ( talk) 15:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Oldsilenus: Hello. I know it can be frustrating when you try to help an article, do everything using best practices, then receive no feedback :/ I wish I could help directly, but everything I read there might as well be in a foreign language to me. I would think that your best bet at getting some feedback at this point would be to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing and give them a link to your post (in this format: [[Talk:Subnetwork Access Protocol#Poor_Grammar_in_beginning_sentences]]) and requesting somebody to take a look. If you don't get the help you need there, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and WP:TEAHOUSE are also around to try to help (the teahouse being mainly for new users, but have a lot of very helpful and nice editors there always willing to help). Of course, if you're confident in your edits, you are welcome to make them yourself and see if anybody reverts or comments (this is what we call being WP:BOLD). I hope this helps and good luck! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have proper reason for Removing my link share with me and helping out to write perfect link on Wikipedia Don't remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakkhatri ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Deepakkhatri: WP:ELNO. The link served no purpose other than selling products. The link is not appropriate and spam. It is not at all related to the subject of the article. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, but since the subject went out of business, it doesn't seem like there is a relationship. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 12:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

You have just removed a reference where you indicate it's a link but it is not. It's just text (stlfinder.com) as is. I did not put a link to it. If you have a look at the entery line, you will notice that stlfinder is related to the content and it's a reference site about what it's being commented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platanufomiamigo ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Platanufomiamigo: This did just create a cite error, but it would have created a link if it was used correctly. Regardless, link or plain text doesn't matter, it is still not appropriate. It should not be used to reference content because it does not satisfy WP:RS. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 12:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good day!

I understand that Wikipedia is very much careful in copyright issues. However, I do have full authority to publish such since I am the web administrator of Notre Dame of Tacurong College. Those written came from our Institutional Manual and Handbooks. Which I find it accurate to put it here since it is a first hand information.

However, if such are not permitted in this article, kindly delete the Notre Dame of Tacurong College portion of Wikipedia. I believe that the institution will be guarded by false information if such will be deleted.

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimo1987 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Asimo1987: Hello. It seems that you have a conflict of interest when it comes to this article. Thank you very much for your transparency in this, but please see WP:COI for information about how to deal with it. Also, WP:5P is a good read to learn what Wikipedia's goals are. Even if the copyright was compatible, it still would not be appropriate content. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Remember that the subject of the article does not own the article. In fact, nobody does. I don't see a valid reason to propose that the article be deleted, but if you wish, you can propose it. See WP:AFD for this. If you see any false information on the article, you are more than welcome to post about it on the talk page, and I'm sure a neutral editor will be more than happy to remove it. You can post it under {{ editrequest}} to make sure somebody sees the post. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 17:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Apparition11. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m sure you have noticed the massive and ridiculous amount of vandalism and absurd content in recent minutes. I thank you for your undos to the vandalism. However, I am confused of why this article was hit by a massive amount of vandalism. I am wandering what you are wanting to do. My IP address is the one that you have blocked from editing. However, I am not the one who had committed the acts of vandalism. It is someone in my house, who I want to remain anonymous for personal reasons. Sorry for having to do with that person. I promise he will never use Wikipedia again. Averagetennesseejoe ( talk) 02:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

But in that case, I would gladly appreciate if you unblocked my IP address, the member of my family will never have access to Wikipedia again. Averagetennesseejoe ( talk) 02:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Averagetennesseejoe: No worries. Honestly, this sort of vandalism is common occurrence and easy to deal with. If the vandalism gets to the point that blocks aren't effective, then the article will eventually get semi-protected. It'd be nice not to get to that point since it blocks all new accounts and IPs from making constructive edits to the article. I am unable to unblock an IP, you'd have to ask an admin. However, since you're editing my talk page, you are not blocked from editing, but your family member is, so that seems to be the optimal solution. If the IP block somehow ends up affecting you, you can ask for a IP block exemption. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)