Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 ( talk) 13:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi ZeroAlpha87, I noticed you "undid" (reverted) several of your edits at Order of the Garter using the undo function. An easier way to to revert a series of edits is to pull up the last "good" version from History. Click on the time/date stamp in History which will pull up that version, there will be a box at top with a link [restore this version], just click that and it will revert all edits that occurred afterward in one click/one edit. If you ever have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 ( talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is a work in progress. It may take years for articles to be created, but, as you have discovered, redlinks are acceptable for articles that should be created at some point in the future. This means that when the article is created, the links are already in place. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I provided an explanation in my edit summaries:
MOS:HONORIFIC.
DrKay (
talk)
16:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the report you filed at AE as it was malformed and did not seem to be related to any arbitration decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Adolphus Frederick V, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
08:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi ZeroAlpha87! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article, such as changing a substantive honour to an honourary or non-substantive one, is not a minor edit.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
08:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Order of precedence in Scotland, you may be
blocked from editing. The "outright rubbish" I mentioned in my edit summary is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of you making things up and then trying to get them on wikipedia.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello ZeroAlpha87. I have just opened a discussion thread at Talk:Open University in which you might be interested. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, just letting you know that I’ve reverted your edits to United Kingdom honours order of wearing and Australian honours order of wearing, because the articles show the order which the honours are worn & their precedence, not what a recipient would be known as “recipient of” etc. That’s fluff that isn’t necessary on the articles. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You made spelling changes to Identity document, from US to UK spelling. However, the article has a mix of US and UK spelling before and after the changes. I reverted your spelling changes, but left your changes to a link. Please discuss on the article talk page which variety of English should be used in the article, keeping in mind the provisions of MOS:ENGVAR. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The last big discussion about "t/The Bahamas" was here. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello.
The comma you have been removing from several peers' articles actually needs to be there. It is paired with the first comma of the article, that which is immediately following the peerage title. It is also called the closing comma. See WP:COMMA, bullet point 2: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".
Here's a step-by-step explanation as to why it is needed. The second comma is marked with "here".
here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, was a British peer.
After adding the lifespan:
here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
After adding the postnominals (preceding the lifespan, which in turn is preceding the closing comma):
<postnominals> and here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
For people without a peerage title – or something similar that is enclosed by commas – there should be no comma, so you were right about the comma you removed here.
Thanks for understanding. HandsomeFella ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
You removed the comma stating in your summary "He is probably not the only French Jesuit priest and scientist."
You removed the comma again stating "Maybe you do believe that, but I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on apposition. The comma is not for aesthetics."
So thanks for pointing to the article on apposition. I was not familiar with that term. I'm a retired quality engineer, but all technical writing can skew what is "normal".
According to Apposition, you are treating the phrase as a restrictive appositive (which) provides information essential to identifying the phrase in apposition. It limits or clarifies that phrase in some crucial way, such that the meaning of the sentence would change if the appositive were removed. In English, restrictive appositives are not set off by commas.
Thereby, you are making "French Jesuit priest and scientist" essential to the meaning of the sentence, which it is clearly not. What is essential, is identifying de Chardin.
I believe it is clearly a non-restrictive appositive (which) provides information not critical to identifying the phrase in apposition. It provides non-essential information, and the essential meaning of the sentence would not change if the appositive were removed. In English, non-restrictive appositives are typically set off by commas, like this:
" ... and the French Jesuit priest and scientist,A Pierre Teilhard de ChardinP"
Since the phase "French Jesuit priest and scientist"A can be removed without losing the phrase in appositionP
What I find confusing is your initial summary. If de Chardin was the only French Jesuit priest and scientist, then you would definitely have a sentence where either phrase could be used to identify the person, neither are critical to the sentence, so you have a non-restrictive appositive which should be set off by commas.
And if he is not the only French Jesuit priest and scientist, then they are just descriptive and can be removed, and again you have a non-restrictive appositive set off by commas. I guess I don't see where "the probably not the only " comes into play in this case.
Also, punctuation serves at least two purposes. It helps remove ambiguity, and also reflects the way that we speak. Most people would pause between "scientist " and "Pierre", so for that reason and the results of my discussion of the apposition article, I think the comma should be there.
However, you feel strongly about this, so I am not going to try to revert it back. But any feedback to this would be appreciated. • Bobsd • ( talk) 03:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the Japanese government gazette has decided to award Charles III the coller on the date of June 14. It is true that Charles III was given his coller on June 25. However, if you are confident in your idea, there is no need to delete the source. I understand that Japanese language sources are not welcome. Juqipedia ( talk) 13:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 ( talk) 13:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi ZeroAlpha87, I noticed you "undid" (reverted) several of your edits at Order of the Garter using the undo function. An easier way to to revert a series of edits is to pull up the last "good" version from History. Click on the time/date stamp in History which will pull up that version, there will be a box at top with a link [restore this version], just click that and it will revert all edits that occurred afterward in one click/one edit. If you ever have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 ( talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is a work in progress. It may take years for articles to be created, but, as you have discovered, redlinks are acceptable for articles that should be created at some point in the future. This means that when the article is created, the links are already in place. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I provided an explanation in my edit summaries:
MOS:HONORIFIC.
DrKay (
talk)
16:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the report you filed at AE as it was malformed and did not seem to be related to any arbitration decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Adolphus Frederick V, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
08:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi ZeroAlpha87! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article, such as changing a substantive honour to an honourary or non-substantive one, is not a minor edit.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
08:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Order of precedence in Scotland, you may be
blocked from editing. The "outright rubbish" I mentioned in my edit summary is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of you making things up and then trying to get them on wikipedia.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello ZeroAlpha87. I have just opened a discussion thread at Talk:Open University in which you might be interested. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, just letting you know that I’ve reverted your edits to United Kingdom honours order of wearing and Australian honours order of wearing, because the articles show the order which the honours are worn & their precedence, not what a recipient would be known as “recipient of” etc. That’s fluff that isn’t necessary on the articles. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You made spelling changes to Identity document, from US to UK spelling. However, the article has a mix of US and UK spelling before and after the changes. I reverted your spelling changes, but left your changes to a link. Please discuss on the article talk page which variety of English should be used in the article, keeping in mind the provisions of MOS:ENGVAR. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The last big discussion about "t/The Bahamas" was here. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello.
The comma you have been removing from several peers' articles actually needs to be there. It is paired with the first comma of the article, that which is immediately following the peerage title. It is also called the closing comma. See WP:COMMA, bullet point 2: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".
Here's a step-by-step explanation as to why it is needed. The second comma is marked with "here".
here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, was a British peer.
After adding the lifespan:
here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
After adding the postnominals (preceding the lifespan, which in turn is preceding the closing comma):
<postnominals> and here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
For people without a peerage title – or something similar that is enclosed by commas – there should be no comma, so you were right about the comma you removed here.
Thanks for understanding. HandsomeFella ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
You removed the comma stating in your summary "He is probably not the only French Jesuit priest and scientist."
You removed the comma again stating "Maybe you do believe that, but I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on apposition. The comma is not for aesthetics."
So thanks for pointing to the article on apposition. I was not familiar with that term. I'm a retired quality engineer, but all technical writing can skew what is "normal".
According to Apposition, you are treating the phrase as a restrictive appositive (which) provides information essential to identifying the phrase in apposition. It limits or clarifies that phrase in some crucial way, such that the meaning of the sentence would change if the appositive were removed. In English, restrictive appositives are not set off by commas.
Thereby, you are making "French Jesuit priest and scientist" essential to the meaning of the sentence, which it is clearly not. What is essential, is identifying de Chardin.
I believe it is clearly a non-restrictive appositive (which) provides information not critical to identifying the phrase in apposition. It provides non-essential information, and the essential meaning of the sentence would not change if the appositive were removed. In English, non-restrictive appositives are typically set off by commas, like this:
" ... and the French Jesuit priest and scientist,A Pierre Teilhard de ChardinP"
Since the phase "French Jesuit priest and scientist"A can be removed without losing the phrase in appositionP
What I find confusing is your initial summary. If de Chardin was the only French Jesuit priest and scientist, then you would definitely have a sentence where either phrase could be used to identify the person, neither are critical to the sentence, so you have a non-restrictive appositive which should be set off by commas.
And if he is not the only French Jesuit priest and scientist, then they are just descriptive and can be removed, and again you have a non-restrictive appositive set off by commas. I guess I don't see where "the probably not the only " comes into play in this case.
Also, punctuation serves at least two purposes. It helps remove ambiguity, and also reflects the way that we speak. Most people would pause between "scientist " and "Pierre", so for that reason and the results of my discussion of the apposition article, I think the comma should be there.
However, you feel strongly about this, so I am not going to try to revert it back. But any feedback to this would be appreciated. • Bobsd • ( talk) 03:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the Japanese government gazette has decided to award Charles III the coller on the date of June 14. It is true that Charles III was given his coller on June 25. However, if you are confident in your idea, there is no need to delete the source. I understand that Japanese language sources are not welcome. Juqipedia ( talk) 13:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)