![]() | 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. |
Thank you for all your good anti-vandalism & general cleanup work under Autoerrant. I do, however, have a suggestion/request in light of a recent edit to Gerontology. The edit in question removed many (or all?) of the duplicate wikilinks that occurred in the article. As indicated at WP:REPEATLINK, there are many exceptions to the general guidance that only the first occurrence of a word should be wikilinked. Several of the duplicate wikilinks that Autoerrant removed were useful, IMO, and should have been left. Therefore, I would recommend/request that you try to make this aspect of Autoerrant's AWB-based editing less indiscriminate or remove it completely. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Zach425 talk/ contribs 09:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
TM, I would applaud your continued thinking about which links are likely to be effective in the article. The article looks and reads very much better indeed as a result. I had cleaned up the links somewhat, and replaced quite a few with WKT links because was hesitant to remove too many. I have no issues with any of the WKT links you removed. Whilst I may have some small reservations – linking words such as 'monopoly' and coup d'etat, I would say you have it about right. Keep up the good work! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Diaspora logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! Mootros ( talk) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Did it break headers for you? It didn't for me. Also -- for years MOS suggested alternating pics. Was there a robust discussion leading to a change on that of late? If so, I missed it. Best. (You can reply here).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - a link to ANI was emailed to me, and I want to be very clear about one point: see this edit. The Foundation does not globally assume the responsibility of contacting law enforcement: I specifically did so in that case only. I appreciate you being around this morning, and offering your advice. I just want to correct your misunderstanding of what I said so that it is clear if it needs to be in the future. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 10:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your extensive help with development of LGBT Parenting article. Your edits and insights are very helpful and the discussion help to overcome the differences in opinion how to dealt with issues. Thank you for constructive attitude. I've created the majority of content in last several years and I really appreciate such development since I care much of it. I hope the cooperation will continue. The article deserves careful edits. -- Destinero ( talk) 11:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
While stalking your user page I noticed a typo - you need to replace "legitmate" with "legitimate". (It's in one of your userboxes.)
I decided not to fix it directly just in case it messed up the userbox formatting or something, plus I understand it's seen as a bit rude to edit others' userpages for reasons other than something drastic. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your joining into the conversation at Big Beautiful Women, but I think it is premature to impose a solution without first gathering a consensus among the other editors. This is a situation in which one editor is refusing to discuss his opinion and participate in creating a new consensus and you come along and drop in your solution without bothering to participate in generating a consensus as well. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? Several editors have favored the "above average" wording over the other. You bring to two the number of editors who feel that "overweight or obese" best captures the source. We are not limited to using only the exact words which happen to appear in the source when we choose words to capture the claims in the source. I don't understand how you (or the other editor) can think that we are limited in such a manner. The words we choose must capture the claims, but it would be a bizarre parlor game to then limit the choice of words to those found in the source. I have reverted to the earlier text. Please come participate in building a consensus one way or the other. Regards, Celestra ( talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Thanks for your comment - this is the last but one of several hundred Wikipedia tags I am closing down. Of the maybe 5 editors who have set up home on my talk page, I am sure only 1 1/2 intend to hound. But I have actually been unable to achieve anything for three weeks due to the level of argument - it passes the duck test. And while some are level headed, others pull statements out of the air, then ask me to explain them. When I demonstrate they are simply wrong in their assumptions, another member of the tag team will pick up that I "have an 'I'm right, you're wrong." attitude. Which, considering the number of "happy customers" I have had when there have been substantive problems, is rather irritating in itself. Anyway I won't bore you any further, off to my Wikibreak.
Rich
Farmbrough,
17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
Stop removing my posts. If you're not aware I have a dynamic IP and numerous computers. So stop removing my posts, just because you fancy BW (Big Women, they're not beautiful) doesn't mean you should remove peoples comments that you don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.92.37 ( talk) 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Given these two diffs in the recent "discussion" by this admitted dynamic IP sockpuppeteer,
admitted on your own talkpage no less, I categorically reject your lecture and submit that you are not in a position to tell me I can't call WP:DUCK. He is a troll, I call them as I see them.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Puffin has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! |
![]() | 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. |
Thank you for all your good anti-vandalism & general cleanup work under Autoerrant. I do, however, have a suggestion/request in light of a recent edit to Gerontology. The edit in question removed many (or all?) of the duplicate wikilinks that occurred in the article. As indicated at WP:REPEATLINK, there are many exceptions to the general guidance that only the first occurrence of a word should be wikilinked. Several of the duplicate wikilinks that Autoerrant removed were useful, IMO, and should have been left. Therefore, I would recommend/request that you try to make this aspect of Autoerrant's AWB-based editing less indiscriminate or remove it completely. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Zach425 talk/ contribs 09:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
TM, I would applaud your continued thinking about which links are likely to be effective in the article. The article looks and reads very much better indeed as a result. I had cleaned up the links somewhat, and replaced quite a few with WKT links because was hesitant to remove too many. I have no issues with any of the WKT links you removed. Whilst I may have some small reservations – linking words such as 'monopoly' and coup d'etat, I would say you have it about right. Keep up the good work! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Diaspora logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! Mootros ( talk) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Did it break headers for you? It didn't for me. Also -- for years MOS suggested alternating pics. Was there a robust discussion leading to a change on that of late? If so, I missed it. Best. (You can reply here).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - a link to ANI was emailed to me, and I want to be very clear about one point: see this edit. The Foundation does not globally assume the responsibility of contacting law enforcement: I specifically did so in that case only. I appreciate you being around this morning, and offering your advice. I just want to correct your misunderstanding of what I said so that it is clear if it needs to be in the future. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 10:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your extensive help with development of LGBT Parenting article. Your edits and insights are very helpful and the discussion help to overcome the differences in opinion how to dealt with issues. Thank you for constructive attitude. I've created the majority of content in last several years and I really appreciate such development since I care much of it. I hope the cooperation will continue. The article deserves careful edits. -- Destinero ( talk) 11:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
While stalking your user page I noticed a typo - you need to replace "legitmate" with "legitimate". (It's in one of your userboxes.)
I decided not to fix it directly just in case it messed up the userbox formatting or something, plus I understand it's seen as a bit rude to edit others' userpages for reasons other than something drastic. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your joining into the conversation at Big Beautiful Women, but I think it is premature to impose a solution without first gathering a consensus among the other editors. This is a situation in which one editor is refusing to discuss his opinion and participate in creating a new consensus and you come along and drop in your solution without bothering to participate in generating a consensus as well. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? Several editors have favored the "above average" wording over the other. You bring to two the number of editors who feel that "overweight or obese" best captures the source. We are not limited to using only the exact words which happen to appear in the source when we choose words to capture the claims in the source. I don't understand how you (or the other editor) can think that we are limited in such a manner. The words we choose must capture the claims, but it would be a bizarre parlor game to then limit the choice of words to those found in the source. I have reverted to the earlier text. Please come participate in building a consensus one way or the other. Regards, Celestra ( talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Thanks for your comment - this is the last but one of several hundred Wikipedia tags I am closing down. Of the maybe 5 editors who have set up home on my talk page, I am sure only 1 1/2 intend to hound. But I have actually been unable to achieve anything for three weeks due to the level of argument - it passes the duck test. And while some are level headed, others pull statements out of the air, then ask me to explain them. When I demonstrate they are simply wrong in their assumptions, another member of the tag team will pick up that I "have an 'I'm right, you're wrong." attitude. Which, considering the number of "happy customers" I have had when there have been substantive problems, is rather irritating in itself. Anyway I won't bore you any further, off to my Wikibreak.
Rich
Farmbrough,
17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
Stop removing my posts. If you're not aware I have a dynamic IP and numerous computers. So stop removing my posts, just because you fancy BW (Big Women, they're not beautiful) doesn't mean you should remove peoples comments that you don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.92.37 ( talk) 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Given these two diffs in the recent "discussion" by this admitted dynamic IP sockpuppeteer,
admitted on your own talkpage no less, I categorically reject your lecture and submit that you are not in a position to tell me I can't call WP:DUCK. He is a troll, I call them as I see them.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Puffin has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! |