![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Such sources should be used with caution, not outright avoided. You have removed a citation, but retained the contribution. Why? Because the contribution was helpful, it was written by a knowledgeable professional with expertise in this area, and a higher quality source is not available. Go ahead and find a better source, rather than wantonly deleting someone's work.
Obviously you agreed that the information benefited the article, but intended to hide the source.
"help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources". [1] You must understand that saying something is true because you've written it on your website is not verification.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Feature News
Project Updates
Learn more
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. You can also get other news from the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin.
Hello NebY - Do you happen to remember this case [5]? After case was closed last August, same reappeared under new names & was caught, resulting with closing of accounts that probably run to close to a dozen. I now suspect same has reappeared under new name. Having learned last year that getting into edit warring was dangerous, I will not take that route again & am asking for help at very beginning of what seems to be a new case when article & contributors are going to be held hostage, as happened to Marie Antoinette & Chartres. In other words, I am not going to revert last edit. Please check edits of today from here [6] to here [7] Method, style of writing, subject, poor English with same type(s) of mistakes, plus overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August.
I hope you will be willing & have the time to help.
Thank you in advance,
-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello NebY,
Thank you for your note. This is my first time commenting on a talk page so I hope I'm doing this correctly.
Regarding the changes I made to the Muhammad page, there were intended to make the page consistent. God is the English equivalent for the Arabic "Allah". God, when capitalized, is understood by most to be the God of the Judaic and Christian traditions. This is the same God as that of Islamic traditions. So to use Allah in a passage that is otherwise in English suggests that Allah is a different God than that of the Jews and Christians, which, again, He is not. It is simpler to just be consistent and use the word God in every instance, except in certain names, like 'Abd Allah.
Thank you,
StealthStar talk 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your talk page for a week because of the repeated vandalism, in the hope it might dissuade them from wasting their life in this way. If you'd prefer leaving it open, let me know and I'll release the protection - alternatively, if it continues after expiry and you'd like further protection I'll be happy to do that too. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi NebY, I'm just letting you know that I got the world population info. on the UN website, a reliable source, so please stop changing my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-dog12.0 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
References
Hi NebY it's me again. Thanks for the advice on how to sign posts. B-dog12.0 ( talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello NebY, I do not see why the article on Doug Bresler was unreliably sourced. The user GauchoDude had previously approved my edit and said that those sources will suffice. Please add more information later; I will be undoing the edit. 74.138.130.163 ( talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)User
You removed my addition of Patrick Buckley (priest) from the disambiguation page Patrick Buckley. I assume it was because it is a red link. However, the guideline states: "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere". Patrick Buckley (priest) is used in six other articles and I believe meets notability requirement; I'm surprised that there isn't an article on him already but expect one will eventually be written based on what a quick search turns up. Mb66w ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Which claim is unsourced in my edit on Christian Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kszorp ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."If you then wish to continue, follow Wikipedia:Bold, Revert, Discuss and discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, not here. NebY ( talk) 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Will start following conventions more often, and being more meticulous. Thanks for the tips. - Cynulliad, 10 March 2016, 19:58 (UTC)
A whole lot of reasonable changes, many made by yourself, to the Greene's Tutorial College page has just been undone. I'd undo them myself but am a very inexperienced Wikipedian who thought you might want to know. Mifachispa96 ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This may be of interest, since you were involved in the previous round of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NebY. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Such sources should be used with caution, not outright avoided. You have removed a citation, but retained the contribution. Why? Because the contribution was helpful, it was written by a knowledgeable professional with expertise in this area, and a higher quality source is not available. Go ahead and find a better source, rather than wantonly deleting someone's work.
Obviously you agreed that the information benefited the article, but intended to hide the source.
"help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources". [1] You must understand that saying something is true because you've written it on your website is not verification.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Feature News
Project Updates
Learn more
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. You can also get other news from the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin.
Hello NebY - Do you happen to remember this case [5]? After case was closed last August, same reappeared under new names & was caught, resulting with closing of accounts that probably run to close to a dozen. I now suspect same has reappeared under new name. Having learned last year that getting into edit warring was dangerous, I will not take that route again & am asking for help at very beginning of what seems to be a new case when article & contributors are going to be held hostage, as happened to Marie Antoinette & Chartres. In other words, I am not going to revert last edit. Please check edits of today from here [6] to here [7] Method, style of writing, subject, poor English with same type(s) of mistakes, plus overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August.
I hope you will be willing & have the time to help.
Thank you in advance,
-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello NebY,
Thank you for your note. This is my first time commenting on a talk page so I hope I'm doing this correctly.
Regarding the changes I made to the Muhammad page, there were intended to make the page consistent. God is the English equivalent for the Arabic "Allah". God, when capitalized, is understood by most to be the God of the Judaic and Christian traditions. This is the same God as that of Islamic traditions. So to use Allah in a passage that is otherwise in English suggests that Allah is a different God than that of the Jews and Christians, which, again, He is not. It is simpler to just be consistent and use the word God in every instance, except in certain names, like 'Abd Allah.
Thank you,
StealthStar talk 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your talk page for a week because of the repeated vandalism, in the hope it might dissuade them from wasting their life in this way. If you'd prefer leaving it open, let me know and I'll release the protection - alternatively, if it continues after expiry and you'd like further protection I'll be happy to do that too. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi NebY, I'm just letting you know that I got the world population info. on the UN website, a reliable source, so please stop changing my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-dog12.0 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
References
Hi NebY it's me again. Thanks for the advice on how to sign posts. B-dog12.0 ( talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello NebY, I do not see why the article on Doug Bresler was unreliably sourced. The user GauchoDude had previously approved my edit and said that those sources will suffice. Please add more information later; I will be undoing the edit. 74.138.130.163 ( talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)User
You removed my addition of Patrick Buckley (priest) from the disambiguation page Patrick Buckley. I assume it was because it is a red link. However, the guideline states: "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere". Patrick Buckley (priest) is used in six other articles and I believe meets notability requirement; I'm surprised that there isn't an article on him already but expect one will eventually be written based on what a quick search turns up. Mb66w ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Which claim is unsourced in my edit on Christian Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kszorp ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."If you then wish to continue, follow Wikipedia:Bold, Revert, Discuss and discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, not here. NebY ( talk) 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Will start following conventions more often, and being more meticulous. Thanks for the tips. - Cynulliad, 10 March 2016, 19:58 (UTC)
A whole lot of reasonable changes, many made by yourself, to the Greene's Tutorial College page has just been undone. I'd undo them myself but am a very inexperienced Wikipedian who thought you might want to know. Mifachispa96 ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This may be of interest, since you were involved in the previous round of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, NebY. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)