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 |
Hi DIY Editor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC) |
why did you erase my edition in Evan Rachel Wood
Sasha Leiva66 (
talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back, DIY, thanks for the explanation @ Waterloo. Wikipedia brags about how many articles they have. They might, just, shift their focus to quality. Your return is a small step. In the meantime, have some pasta. Regards Tapered ( talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
oops, sorry about this. I don't know how I managed to do that, i only meant to fix the link... 2401:A400:6202:6500:990D:A336:4C39:CB17 ( talk) 07:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi DIY editor,
Just replying to your comment re Gordon Ramsay's profile image here. Fair point re image - are you able to authorize replacement with this one instead please?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Ramsay_Chef.jpg
Thanks Neli — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeliMiteva ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It got a good review in the The Midwest Book Review which is not a promo site. It is a reputable library book review organization committed to promoting literacy, library usage, and small press publishing. The book is written by an academic and is extremely well researched. Not all the authors quoted on that page are more expert than Goode. I just can't understand why there is such as issue. --Sue Maberry ( talk) 21:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Good morning, DIY,
You and I may not agree on the colony issue, but we need to work together on a vandalism problem.
An anonymous user without a Wikipedia account, changed the heading American era to American colony. In spite of the fact that this is clearly controversial, as discussed at length in the Talk section re: colony. I have reverted that edit. (If you catch him doing it again, please revert it.) Unless we get consensus for such a change, it cannot be allowed. If he persists in changing the heading to "colony" I will get an Admin to protect the Puerto Rico page. Cheers! Peter K Burian ( talk) 13:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello DIYeditor,
Thanks for your compliments on my talk page. I noticed you've just started editing Wikipedia in November, at least on this account. Please let me be the first to wish you a warm welcome! I hope you don't mind my adding the boilerplate greeting below.
See you around,
cmɢʟee⎆
τaʟκ 02:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome! I would love to get your thoughts on this section, specifically in response to my first post and in relation to this edit. cheers - Subuey ( talk) 02:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Were you ever an employee of MDC or were you a Boeing (never MDC) employee?
Why won't you just leave the edits alone. I have made the last one with REFERENCE and you call the LA TIMES a SILLY SOURCE. How demeaning is that. It is a major newspaper. I presume the similar FULL PAGE articles in the NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, St Louis TODAY would all be SILLY as well.
I would not call FULL PAGE articles by all of those newspapers with the same QUOTES TRIVIAL or SILLY.
I truly do not understand.
Is or is not this a COMMUNITY EFFORT or DO YOU OWN THE Wiki articles in question.
Please acquiesce on this!
Haven't needed to use talk until now.
SO now it is just PROMOTIONAL.
YOu can come up with 50 reasons and NONE MAKE ANY SENSE except that you have decided to be a royal pain!
I really hope someone calls your employer(s) TRIVIAL and all your your work TRIVIAL some day. Hope they just call you TRIVIAL and PROMOTIONAL. You apparently, are an editor with no sense! I actually got to talk to and meet some of the 1991 navy pilots and air force pilots. They universally extolled the virtues of MDC aircraft, particularly the F5 Eagle, the F15Strike Eagle and the F/A-18. Both the F-18 and F-15 had enemy shoot downs during the 1991 Gulf conflict
Apparently there are several NAZI editors that are killing all my edits even when I have EXTREMELY PRECISE and NUMEROUS REFERENCES to support the statements. Apparently, every phrase or part of a sentence must have a precise and numerous references and still they kill the edits. Apparently WIKI doesn't give a flaming care about accuracy or completeness, just whomever can revert first! Who can arbitrate this???
This is just frustrating. Mondobyte ( talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Most edits??? What else have you changed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion that should take place on article talk page
|
---|
"The F/A-18 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,034 knots, 1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,200 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by the 20-mm M61 Vulcan cannon. It is powered by two General Electric F404 turbofan engines, which give the aircraft a high thrust-to-weight ratio. The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions. The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset, though it has been criticized for its lack of range and payload compared to its earlier contemporaries, such as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat in the fighter and strike fighter role, and the Grumman A-6 Intruder and LTV A-7 Corsair II in the attack role." This whole paragraph is fundamentally flawed. Most of these specs apply to the F/A-18A/B/C/D but most do apply to the F/A-18E/F. Not all apply to the A/B nor the C/D which have slightly differing specs. The original F404-GE-402 turbofan of the A/B variants was upgraded to the "F404-GE-402turbofan enhanced performance" engine for C/D which has better performance - higher climb rate, higher max ceiling(Classified), better fuel economy, higher top speed (classified) and better reliability. Through engines wearing out and such, many A/B variants have been retrofitted with the newer engines as the fittings are common. In my opinion, the "F/A-18" should have a very thin base article with references to the A/B/C/D Hornet and the E/F Super Hornet. The current article should more accurately be "F/A-18 Hornet" and only address the A/B/C/D variants. This would remove many of the duality issues and problems that I know of in the current situation. "The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions. The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset," is likely attributable to all variants but the rest is really dicey. The E/F does not use F404 Turbofans - it uses F414 Turbofans. In reality, although the two aircraft share certain heritage concepts, the F/A-18A/B/C/D is an entirely different aircraft from the F/A-E/F. With a few major obvious superficial similarities - two engines, angled rudders the planes are completely different inside and out! Because the E/F is so much larger and heavier, there are literally only a couple components common to both planes and no major assemblies. I would be one to know because I had a significant role in the E/F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
Is there a place in the moor article that would be appropriate for the below?
"A moor is a minimalist, melancholy sweep of close-cropped, open terrain" according to National Geographic.
Sendtoanthony (
talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
Thnaks for creating the article
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development. But I think the title of the article can be better with "Timeline of development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II", or "History of development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II"; or something similar to these names. That just my opinion though, kindly let me know what you think. —usernamekiran
(talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a RfC for Westworld since consensus was unable to be reached. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, edits like this notify nobody. Apart from the #s which you fixed in the next edit, the link to the other user's home page and your signature must be added in the same post, and it needs to be a new post, not an amendment. See WP:Echo. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you didn't report me do AN/I, have I done so myself. [1] You're not mentioned by alias. Please read it, anyways. Boeing720 ( talk) 22:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I have reverted the edit where you changed all 'GNU/Linux' to 'Linux' on the Unix article. While most of the people, mostly laymen, use the term Linux, for the OS, fact is, Linux is not an OS. It is just a kernel. GNU/Linux is the proper term for the OSes built on top of Linux kernel. Take a look -> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html Thanks and keep editing :) ! abhilash_kp ( talk) 05:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Boeing720 ( talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC) But you're still not mentioned by alias. (See it as a polite invitation, please) I'm by the way truly sorry for posting the AN/I wrong. You may copy whatever, but please don't erase my texts. During a far too long time was I not able to post any answers. Note - I'm not blaming you for that. But it seemed like I only could write very short , or there was an edit-conflict preventing my text to be saved. Boeing720 ( talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I had no 'hidden agenda' save to make the title more accurate! Ériugena ( talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks DIYeditor for your kind reply. To the pure all things are pure! Ériugena ( talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
DIYeditor, I believe you made an honest mistake in the Sweden - Geography - Climate - Vegetation zones part. I could have screamed "own conclusion", "totally wrong", "OR",etc. But I didn't ! As I thought and still think, you just made a simple mistake. And that's fair enough. But this (mainly unnecessary) excuse "my mistake, i was having trouble making out the intent of the sentence or what "anniversaries" meant. let's explain" - but why involve 'anniversaries' at all ? "Annual rings" may be incorrect British English, but I did look it up, and found those words for "årsringar". And cannot possibly be confused with "anniversaries", not by an intelligent person as I think you are. The only reason for my wish to take it up here, is that strange and somewhat accusing excuse. Accusing, since previous editor (= I) never used the word "anniversaries". Simply "my mistake" - or nothing would had been better. And I corrected it without any personal intent. That's all. Thanks. Boeing720 ( talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Naturally you are correct about grammar. I do not question that, and never have. But if you just could stick to explaining, everything would be far more easy to see. By accusing me of making willfully errors, it becomes difficult to take what you say to heart. I also feel you have exaggerated (and mocked sometimes). However am I trying to correct the subject/predicate issue. If I may put that label on it ? And I'm far from alone to make such grammar mistakes. But it was indeed wrong of me, to suggest that you must write articles. I was simply angry. But I am sorry for that. Honestly. I recently wrote "if you want to discuss statistics, can we most certainly do so." But thanks to you, did I change it to "if you want to discuss statistics, we most certainly can do so." I'm not expecting any applause fot that. And I might still make some subject/predicate errors in longer sentences (but if so, not intentionally or willfully). I just humbly ask of you to not talk down to me, and I will make fewer and fewer such errors. Thanks. Boeing720 ( talk) 01:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
DIYeditor, I have come to the conclusion that you honestly are a Wikipedia contributor of special value, if I may say so. You once wondered if the grammar differed between my native language and English regarding - what I would like to call "subject/predicate matters". My answer (which I ought to have given you already at that time) is, there is no essential difference when it comes to matters like "how to formulate a question". This is also the same regarding all brief statements. But in some longer phrases or sentences, there is both a certain possibility so to speak, to "shift" a verb's position relative to the subject (using your "teaching"), and in some cases this isn't a possibility, but a must. One single example of a such "must": "När soldaten kom in, blev jag rädd" - a normal translation "When the soldier came in, I was scared", whilst a word by word translation is "When the soldier came in, was I scared". So your question was indeed valid. And I feel I must thank you for all the remarks you have done. Thanks ! Further, I hope that you can appreciate that I never have made grammatical errors willfully. And the fact that no other Wikipedia editor have made any such complaints ever before (with exception of some obvious "open mocking" of my very first longer comments at talk-pages, but I soon learned from that). I have also, and at the time "at once" corrected for instance "aswell -> as well" and "a player that..." -> "a player who..." in my mind. Solely due to my own observations
Someone once told me "life is like an everlasting school". But this was said by a teacher (later in life, he was not my teacher). And I didn't give that statement much thought until some years later. But I guess that was a pretty fair explanatoin of life. Please accept my apologies. I really should have taken your remarks more seriously from "scratch". I cannot give a 100% guarantee for never ever in the future make grammatical mistakes. I realise I'm not a new Shakespeare. But I think I'm able to write decent enough English, including "the subject/predicate issue". Which indeed is in my mind, now finally. And although I'm 53, I'm still capable of learning. Apart from the already mentioned matter, now corrected in my mind, and "single accidental ones", are there any other sever grammatical errors in my written English, that you have observed ? If so, I would very much appreciate if you could share them with me now. Please keep in mind that I didn't really take you seriously enough from "scratch", as I have tried to explain earlier.
And may I return to you when I encounter grammatical difficulties in the future ? (I'm certain you will continue to keep an eye on me, and you're welcome)
Boeing720 (
talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The merits of edits can be discussed, and edits can be made in a civil fashion. However, your associated edit summary [2] was pompous and belittling: this was unjustified, offensive and bordering on aggressive. Wikipedia is supposed to be good natured, and so please consider your attitude to others and how you communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.188 ( talk) 13:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey! Just curious why you changed your mind on your comments at the AFD for Jacob Truedson Demitz? I thought your !vote was quite well thought out so I was sad to see you delete it. No pressure to restore it or anything, just saying I thought it was a solid contribution to the discussion. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm disturbing. From Grisjakten (a Swedish film) Quote: "So why should anyone make complaints of a decision made by the government and the by the people elected parliament ?" Is the question correct ? Especially the underlined part ? If possible. Boeing720 ( talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I was attempting to provide more of a mini-tutorial, on the talk page of someone who seems to have some issues with properly absorbing WP editing norms, and difficulty accepting constructive criticism. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: this (the problem you identify, not your reaction to it), I find it helps to preview and consider how long a monolithic block I'm posting and then start trimming and compressing (which I'm not very good at in talk posts, though skilled at with encyclopedic and policy text), and – much more easily – putting in paragraph breaks so the material's more easily digestible. Even I had a hard time getting through a text-wall that dense, but it would have been easy if snipped into bite-size pieces, either as a series of short paragraphs or of long-ish list items. (All that said, I'm still criticized for not paragraph-breaking frequently enough, so I guess take this advice and multiply it × 2. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
and <ins>...</ins>
if that happens). It's eminently better to improve one's post than to leave it in a poor state, especially if it's recent and people haven't mulled it over much yet. PS: I also put {{
Thread mode}}
on my userpage, on the off-chance someone wants to get pissy about it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)You have removed information from the article Huns which is supported from reliable sources. [3] Why ?-- 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 ( talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@ 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25: Insufficient support for "most ancient texts". Please take it up on the article talk page so more people can have input. —DIYeditor ( talk) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Barnstars have become rather old fashioned on Wikipedia but I think you've earned one for the hard work you've done on Intel Management Engine. Good job! Jason Quinn ( talk) 06:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC) |
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, DIYeditor. 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)
DIYeditor --
Did you check Chicago Manual of Style, Wikipedia MOS (or anything else) before your edits to common law? Some of the principles you advance aren't in any style manual I found, US or UK (I looked at only wikipedia MOS, CMOS, and a few random things that popped out of Google on specific issues, and on only a few issues -- I didn't go on any kind of exhaustive search). On at least the issues I looked for, the text before your edit was in conformance with the manuals I looked at.
Even under the MOS:LQ "part of the quote" rule, the period IS in the underlying source. So your edit was -- too hasty.
Your cite to MOS:ENGVAR has an important qualifier -- "if no clear style for the article has been established." The article is in standard U.S. usage, with occasional deviations from recent UK editors -- why does that qualifier not apply? And what about "North American usage is typically to end all abbreviations with a period?" What about other advice in MOS:US "avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK"
This isn't one of the things that's worth any kind of argument, and wouldn't matter in a edit of first instance -- but if you're gonna revert, I would think it would be a good idea to make sure you're standing on solid ground first? And in edits for form (rather than for content), if you detect a few U.K.-isms in an article that's otherwise consistent in North American usage, conform the few, rather than further randomize?
Thanks
DCLawwyer ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The period IS in the underlying source": There is not one period in question, rather quite a number of locations where you put punctuation inside quotes. By MOS:ENGVAR I don't think the article can be said to clearly adhere to American usage and I don't think it would be appropriate for us to force an article to conform to such when it is not about a topic primarily of interest to Americans or associated with the US, but perhaps this is a discussion that needs to take place if there is some question. I think MOS:US (and apparently the CMS) is pretty clear that "US" is preferred and by extension "UK" so changing to "U.S." when (if) that usage has not clearly been established in the article is not appropriate. As you say, really not worth arguing over; I think the main point is to stick to Wikipedia's British-style quotation-punctuation rules. —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Boeing720 ( talk) 15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the english, i translate from wikipedia in spanish or wikipedia in french (i know both languages) using google traductor then I change it as best I can (i also have a good level of english), and that is the result-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 06:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It works with your "stack-syntax", but is it optimal ? Perhap you know of a better way still, for four images ? (As long as the longest map stays put, to the far right, I can live with it. If you got somewhat interested, I have also added two other shots at Landskrona, Harbour section, parts of Gråen can be seen in them as well. ) Boeing720 ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that my user page was promotional. But please, I am new here. I didn't know the rules. Now how can I make my user page again? :'( I will not mention my personal info again, I promise. Just there will be a short description, contribution to Wiki and social links. Isn't that OK? AhmedLutfeInam 10:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent suggestions, for which many thanks. Hoping this turns into a proposal which I can then support. KJP1 ( talk) 22:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, DIYeditor. I recently created the AMD Platform Security Processor article, which is the AMD analog to Intel Management Engine to which you heavily contributed. If you also have expertise on that topic, you are warmly invited to help develop this new article further. Unfortunately, hardware design is not an area where I am very knowledgeable. It's strange however that both these important topics were "invisible" because they had been redirects until I separated them out into bonafide articles. Jason Quinn ( talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello DIYeditor ! I can now see the benefits with the SVG-formate. Is a special software requiered , or how do I do ? Using Paint doesn't work. By the way - and this is extremely awkward, I think. I had trobles with my desktop and used a laptop instead. The laptop has a Vista restoring partition hidden, but I did once install XP Pro SP3 on it, obviously. On THAT laptop (also using Mozilla Firefox and Google as search engine), I can see a possibility to choose location map ! At the very least I guess we can write off the OS as the trouble. I really accept the standard (?) preferences in the Wikipedia settings. Are you well enlightened in such matters as well ? But my main issue is about how to make SVG files, if possible ? Thanks ! Boeing720 ( talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I have a fairly easy, but to me suddenly confusing, question. Let's take some simple examples, as I guess that's the easiest way for us both.
Basically it's about tenses of the verb "to have" - "have/has" - "had" - "had" (just like go/goes - went - gone ; do/does - did - done ; speak/speaks - spoke - spoken ; eat/eats - ate - eaten), if you can see the pattern I trying to explain ? Then to the examples - is any of thrm wrong grammar ?
It's of course number 5 and 10 which I wonder (most) about, if they sound wrong. Can "had had" exist? Sorry to disturb. Boeing720 ( talk) 16:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
How am I 'heading for 3RR,' when an editor has already reverted three of my edits? How is he not being warned for 3RR? This relates to the kratom page. 2601:80:C201:1910:1C5C:7801:CBA1:F73 ( talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 32.218.44.111 ( talk) 19:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb. But I did install this at my connected PC. But when compiling, the gcc want's to open an object file (with changing and strange name) in the TEMP-directory like "ccDGgKuk.o". I've checked the path. The bin-directory is included. May I ask, is there any setting file - or do you have any other hint ? (This version was supposed to "get the Linux feeling on Windows" and I get the general idea that far.) The entire tree looks "normal". "help" just gives the CMD-help, "gcc /help" or "gcc help" doesn't work at all. The download and other GNU pages gives no help either. I know this isn't your work, but if you can PLEASE help me on this. It is an honest question, and I have really tried. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:41, 14 February 2018 (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 |
Hi DIY Editor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC) |
why did you erase my edition in Evan Rachel Wood
Sasha Leiva66 (
talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back, DIY, thanks for the explanation @ Waterloo. Wikipedia brags about how many articles they have. They might, just, shift their focus to quality. Your return is a small step. In the meantime, have some pasta. Regards Tapered ( talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
oops, sorry about this. I don't know how I managed to do that, i only meant to fix the link... 2401:A400:6202:6500:990D:A336:4C39:CB17 ( talk) 07:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi DIY editor,
Just replying to your comment re Gordon Ramsay's profile image here. Fair point re image - are you able to authorize replacement with this one instead please?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Ramsay_Chef.jpg
Thanks Neli — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeliMiteva ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It got a good review in the The Midwest Book Review which is not a promo site. It is a reputable library book review organization committed to promoting literacy, library usage, and small press publishing. The book is written by an academic and is extremely well researched. Not all the authors quoted on that page are more expert than Goode. I just can't understand why there is such as issue. --Sue Maberry ( talk) 21:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Good morning, DIY,
You and I may not agree on the colony issue, but we need to work together on a vandalism problem.
An anonymous user without a Wikipedia account, changed the heading American era to American colony. In spite of the fact that this is clearly controversial, as discussed at length in the Talk section re: colony. I have reverted that edit. (If you catch him doing it again, please revert it.) Unless we get consensus for such a change, it cannot be allowed. If he persists in changing the heading to "colony" I will get an Admin to protect the Puerto Rico page. Cheers! Peter K Burian ( talk) 13:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello DIYeditor,
Thanks for your compliments on my talk page. I noticed you've just started editing Wikipedia in November, at least on this account. Please let me be the first to wish you a warm welcome! I hope you don't mind my adding the boilerplate greeting below.
See you around,
cmɢʟee⎆
τaʟκ 02:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome! I would love to get your thoughts on this section, specifically in response to my first post and in relation to this edit. cheers - Subuey ( talk) 02:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Were you ever an employee of MDC or were you a Boeing (never MDC) employee?
Why won't you just leave the edits alone. I have made the last one with REFERENCE and you call the LA TIMES a SILLY SOURCE. How demeaning is that. It is a major newspaper. I presume the similar FULL PAGE articles in the NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, St Louis TODAY would all be SILLY as well.
I would not call FULL PAGE articles by all of those newspapers with the same QUOTES TRIVIAL or SILLY.
I truly do not understand.
Is or is not this a COMMUNITY EFFORT or DO YOU OWN THE Wiki articles in question.
Please acquiesce on this!
Haven't needed to use talk until now.
SO now it is just PROMOTIONAL.
YOu can come up with 50 reasons and NONE MAKE ANY SENSE except that you have decided to be a royal pain!
I really hope someone calls your employer(s) TRIVIAL and all your your work TRIVIAL some day. Hope they just call you TRIVIAL and PROMOTIONAL. You apparently, are an editor with no sense! I actually got to talk to and meet some of the 1991 navy pilots and air force pilots. They universally extolled the virtues of MDC aircraft, particularly the F5 Eagle, the F15Strike Eagle and the F/A-18. Both the F-18 and F-15 had enemy shoot downs during the 1991 Gulf conflict
Apparently there are several NAZI editors that are killing all my edits even when I have EXTREMELY PRECISE and NUMEROUS REFERENCES to support the statements. Apparently, every phrase or part of a sentence must have a precise and numerous references and still they kill the edits. Apparently WIKI doesn't give a flaming care about accuracy or completeness, just whomever can revert first! Who can arbitrate this???
This is just frustrating. Mondobyte ( talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Most edits??? What else have you changed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion that should take place on article talk page
|
---|
"The F/A-18 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,034 knots, 1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,200 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by the 20-mm M61 Vulcan cannon. It is powered by two General Electric F404 turbofan engines, which give the aircraft a high thrust-to-weight ratio. The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions. The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset, though it has been criticized for its lack of range and payload compared to its earlier contemporaries, such as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat in the fighter and strike fighter role, and the Grumman A-6 Intruder and LTV A-7 Corsair II in the attack role." This whole paragraph is fundamentally flawed. Most of these specs apply to the F/A-18A/B/C/D but most do apply to the F/A-18E/F. Not all apply to the A/B nor the C/D which have slightly differing specs. The original F404-GE-402 turbofan of the A/B variants was upgraded to the "F404-GE-402turbofan enhanced performance" engine for C/D which has better performance - higher climb rate, higher max ceiling(Classified), better fuel economy, higher top speed (classified) and better reliability. Through engines wearing out and such, many A/B variants have been retrofitted with the newer engines as the fittings are common. In my opinion, the "F/A-18" should have a very thin base article with references to the A/B/C/D Hornet and the E/F Super Hornet. The current article should more accurately be "F/A-18 Hornet" and only address the A/B/C/D variants. This would remove many of the duality issues and problems that I know of in the current situation. "The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions. The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset," is likely attributable to all variants but the rest is really dicey. The E/F does not use F404 Turbofans - it uses F414 Turbofans. In reality, although the two aircraft share certain heritage concepts, the F/A-18A/B/C/D is an entirely different aircraft from the F/A-E/F. With a few major obvious superficial similarities - two engines, angled rudders the planes are completely different inside and out! Because the E/F is so much larger and heavier, there are literally only a couple components common to both planes and no major assemblies. I would be one to know because I had a significant role in the E/F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
Is there a place in the moor article that would be appropriate for the below?
"A moor is a minimalist, melancholy sweep of close-cropped, open terrain" according to National Geographic.
Sendtoanthony (
talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
Thnaks for creating the article
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II development. But I think the title of the article can be better with "Timeline of development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II", or "History of development of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II"; or something similar to these names. That just my opinion though, kindly let me know what you think. —usernamekiran
(talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a RfC for Westworld since consensus was unable to be reached. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, edits like this notify nobody. Apart from the #s which you fixed in the next edit, the link to the other user's home page and your signature must be added in the same post, and it needs to be a new post, not an amendment. See WP:Echo. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you didn't report me do AN/I, have I done so myself. [1] You're not mentioned by alias. Please read it, anyways. Boeing720 ( talk) 22:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I have reverted the edit where you changed all 'GNU/Linux' to 'Linux' on the Unix article. While most of the people, mostly laymen, use the term Linux, for the OS, fact is, Linux is not an OS. It is just a kernel. GNU/Linux is the proper term for the OSes built on top of Linux kernel. Take a look -> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html Thanks and keep editing :) ! abhilash_kp ( talk) 05:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Boeing720 ( talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC) But you're still not mentioned by alias. (See it as a polite invitation, please) I'm by the way truly sorry for posting the AN/I wrong. You may copy whatever, but please don't erase my texts. During a far too long time was I not able to post any answers. Note - I'm not blaming you for that. But it seemed like I only could write very short , or there was an edit-conflict preventing my text to be saved. Boeing720 ( talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I had no 'hidden agenda' save to make the title more accurate! Ériugena ( talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks DIYeditor for your kind reply. To the pure all things are pure! Ériugena ( talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
DIYeditor, I believe you made an honest mistake in the Sweden - Geography - Climate - Vegetation zones part. I could have screamed "own conclusion", "totally wrong", "OR",etc. But I didn't ! As I thought and still think, you just made a simple mistake. And that's fair enough. But this (mainly unnecessary) excuse "my mistake, i was having trouble making out the intent of the sentence or what "anniversaries" meant. let's explain" - but why involve 'anniversaries' at all ? "Annual rings" may be incorrect British English, but I did look it up, and found those words for "årsringar". And cannot possibly be confused with "anniversaries", not by an intelligent person as I think you are. The only reason for my wish to take it up here, is that strange and somewhat accusing excuse. Accusing, since previous editor (= I) never used the word "anniversaries". Simply "my mistake" - or nothing would had been better. And I corrected it without any personal intent. That's all. Thanks. Boeing720 ( talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Naturally you are correct about grammar. I do not question that, and never have. But if you just could stick to explaining, everything would be far more easy to see. By accusing me of making willfully errors, it becomes difficult to take what you say to heart. I also feel you have exaggerated (and mocked sometimes). However am I trying to correct the subject/predicate issue. If I may put that label on it ? And I'm far from alone to make such grammar mistakes. But it was indeed wrong of me, to suggest that you must write articles. I was simply angry. But I am sorry for that. Honestly. I recently wrote "if you want to discuss statistics, can we most certainly do so." But thanks to you, did I change it to "if you want to discuss statistics, we most certainly can do so." I'm not expecting any applause fot that. And I might still make some subject/predicate errors in longer sentences (but if so, not intentionally or willfully). I just humbly ask of you to not talk down to me, and I will make fewer and fewer such errors. Thanks. Boeing720 ( talk) 01:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
DIYeditor, I have come to the conclusion that you honestly are a Wikipedia contributor of special value, if I may say so. You once wondered if the grammar differed between my native language and English regarding - what I would like to call "subject/predicate matters". My answer (which I ought to have given you already at that time) is, there is no essential difference when it comes to matters like "how to formulate a question". This is also the same regarding all brief statements. But in some longer phrases or sentences, there is both a certain possibility so to speak, to "shift" a verb's position relative to the subject (using your "teaching"), and in some cases this isn't a possibility, but a must. One single example of a such "must": "När soldaten kom in, blev jag rädd" - a normal translation "When the soldier came in, I was scared", whilst a word by word translation is "When the soldier came in, was I scared". So your question was indeed valid. And I feel I must thank you for all the remarks you have done. Thanks ! Further, I hope that you can appreciate that I never have made grammatical errors willfully. And the fact that no other Wikipedia editor have made any such complaints ever before (with exception of some obvious "open mocking" of my very first longer comments at talk-pages, but I soon learned from that). I have also, and at the time "at once" corrected for instance "aswell -> as well" and "a player that..." -> "a player who..." in my mind. Solely due to my own observations
Someone once told me "life is like an everlasting school". But this was said by a teacher (later in life, he was not my teacher). And I didn't give that statement much thought until some years later. But I guess that was a pretty fair explanatoin of life. Please accept my apologies. I really should have taken your remarks more seriously from "scratch". I cannot give a 100% guarantee for never ever in the future make grammatical mistakes. I realise I'm not a new Shakespeare. But I think I'm able to write decent enough English, including "the subject/predicate issue". Which indeed is in my mind, now finally. And although I'm 53, I'm still capable of learning. Apart from the already mentioned matter, now corrected in my mind, and "single accidental ones", are there any other sever grammatical errors in my written English, that you have observed ? If so, I would very much appreciate if you could share them with me now. Please keep in mind that I didn't really take you seriously enough from "scratch", as I have tried to explain earlier.
And may I return to you when I encounter grammatical difficulties in the future ? (I'm certain you will continue to keep an eye on me, and you're welcome)
Boeing720 (
talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The merits of edits can be discussed, and edits can be made in a civil fashion. However, your associated edit summary [2] was pompous and belittling: this was unjustified, offensive and bordering on aggressive. Wikipedia is supposed to be good natured, and so please consider your attitude to others and how you communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.188 ( talk) 13:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey! Just curious why you changed your mind on your comments at the AFD for Jacob Truedson Demitz? I thought your !vote was quite well thought out so I was sad to see you delete it. No pressure to restore it or anything, just saying I thought it was a solid contribution to the discussion. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm disturbing. From Grisjakten (a Swedish film) Quote: "So why should anyone make complaints of a decision made by the government and the by the people elected parliament ?" Is the question correct ? Especially the underlined part ? If possible. Boeing720 ( talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I was attempting to provide more of a mini-tutorial, on the talk page of someone who seems to have some issues with properly absorbing WP editing norms, and difficulty accepting constructive criticism. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: this (the problem you identify, not your reaction to it), I find it helps to preview and consider how long a monolithic block I'm posting and then start trimming and compressing (which I'm not very good at in talk posts, though skilled at with encyclopedic and policy text), and – much more easily – putting in paragraph breaks so the material's more easily digestible. Even I had a hard time getting through a text-wall that dense, but it would have been easy if snipped into bite-size pieces, either as a series of short paragraphs or of long-ish list items. (All that said, I'm still criticized for not paragraph-breaking frequently enough, so I guess take this advice and multiply it × 2. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
and <ins>...</ins>
if that happens). It's eminently better to improve one's post than to leave it in a poor state, especially if it's recent and people haven't mulled it over much yet. PS: I also put {{
Thread mode}}
on my userpage, on the off-chance someone wants to get pissy about it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)You have removed information from the article Huns which is supported from reliable sources. [3] Why ?-- 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 ( talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@ 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25: Insufficient support for "most ancient texts". Please take it up on the article talk page so more people can have input. —DIYeditor ( talk) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Barnstars have become rather old fashioned on Wikipedia but I think you've earned one for the hard work you've done on Intel Management Engine. Good job! Jason Quinn ( talk) 06:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC) |
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, DIYeditor. 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)
DIYeditor --
Did you check Chicago Manual of Style, Wikipedia MOS (or anything else) before your edits to common law? Some of the principles you advance aren't in any style manual I found, US or UK (I looked at only wikipedia MOS, CMOS, and a few random things that popped out of Google on specific issues, and on only a few issues -- I didn't go on any kind of exhaustive search). On at least the issues I looked for, the text before your edit was in conformance with the manuals I looked at.
Even under the MOS:LQ "part of the quote" rule, the period IS in the underlying source. So your edit was -- too hasty.
Your cite to MOS:ENGVAR has an important qualifier -- "if no clear style for the article has been established." The article is in standard U.S. usage, with occasional deviations from recent UK editors -- why does that qualifier not apply? And what about "North American usage is typically to end all abbreviations with a period?" What about other advice in MOS:US "avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK"
This isn't one of the things that's worth any kind of argument, and wouldn't matter in a edit of first instance -- but if you're gonna revert, I would think it would be a good idea to make sure you're standing on solid ground first? And in edits for form (rather than for content), if you detect a few U.K.-isms in an article that's otherwise consistent in North American usage, conform the few, rather than further randomize?
Thanks
DCLawwyer ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The period IS in the underlying source": There is not one period in question, rather quite a number of locations where you put punctuation inside quotes. By MOS:ENGVAR I don't think the article can be said to clearly adhere to American usage and I don't think it would be appropriate for us to force an article to conform to such when it is not about a topic primarily of interest to Americans or associated with the US, but perhaps this is a discussion that needs to take place if there is some question. I think MOS:US (and apparently the CMS) is pretty clear that "US" is preferred and by extension "UK" so changing to "U.S." when (if) that usage has not clearly been established in the article is not appropriate. As you say, really not worth arguing over; I think the main point is to stick to Wikipedia's British-style quotation-punctuation rules. —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Boeing720 ( talk) 15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the english, i translate from wikipedia in spanish or wikipedia in french (i know both languages) using google traductor then I change it as best I can (i also have a good level of english), and that is the result-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 06:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It works with your "stack-syntax", but is it optimal ? Perhap you know of a better way still, for four images ? (As long as the longest map stays put, to the far right, I can live with it. If you got somewhat interested, I have also added two other shots at Landskrona, Harbour section, parts of Gråen can be seen in them as well. ) Boeing720 ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that my user page was promotional. But please, I am new here. I didn't know the rules. Now how can I make my user page again? :'( I will not mention my personal info again, I promise. Just there will be a short description, contribution to Wiki and social links. Isn't that OK? AhmedLutfeInam 10:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent suggestions, for which many thanks. Hoping this turns into a proposal which I can then support. KJP1 ( talk) 22:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, DIYeditor. I recently created the AMD Platform Security Processor article, which is the AMD analog to Intel Management Engine to which you heavily contributed. If you also have expertise on that topic, you are warmly invited to help develop this new article further. Unfortunately, hardware design is not an area where I am very knowledgeable. It's strange however that both these important topics were "invisible" because they had been redirects until I separated them out into bonafide articles. Jason Quinn ( talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello DIYeditor ! I can now see the benefits with the SVG-formate. Is a special software requiered , or how do I do ? Using Paint doesn't work. By the way - and this is extremely awkward, I think. I had trobles with my desktop and used a laptop instead. The laptop has a Vista restoring partition hidden, but I did once install XP Pro SP3 on it, obviously. On THAT laptop (also using Mozilla Firefox and Google as search engine), I can see a possibility to choose location map ! At the very least I guess we can write off the OS as the trouble. I really accept the standard (?) preferences in the Wikipedia settings. Are you well enlightened in such matters as well ? But my main issue is about how to make SVG files, if possible ? Thanks ! Boeing720 ( talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I have a fairly easy, but to me suddenly confusing, question. Let's take some simple examples, as I guess that's the easiest way for us both.
Basically it's about tenses of the verb "to have" - "have/has" - "had" - "had" (just like go/goes - went - gone ; do/does - did - done ; speak/speaks - spoke - spoken ; eat/eats - ate - eaten), if you can see the pattern I trying to explain ? Then to the examples - is any of thrm wrong grammar ?
It's of course number 5 and 10 which I wonder (most) about, if they sound wrong. Can "had had" exist? Sorry to disturb. Boeing720 ( talk) 16:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
How am I 'heading for 3RR,' when an editor has already reverted three of my edits? How is he not being warned for 3RR? This relates to the kratom page. 2601:80:C201:1910:1C5C:7801:CBA1:F73 ( talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 32.218.44.111 ( talk) 19:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb. But I did install this at my connected PC. But when compiling, the gcc want's to open an object file (with changing and strange name) in the TEMP-directory like "ccDGgKuk.o". I've checked the path. The bin-directory is included. May I ask, is there any setting file - or do you have any other hint ? (This version was supposed to "get the Linux feeling on Windows" and I get the general idea that far.) The entire tree looks "normal". "help" just gives the CMD-help, "gcc /help" or "gcc help" doesn't work at all. The download and other GNU pages gives no help either. I know this isn't your work, but if you can PLEASE help me on this. It is an honest question, and I have really tried. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)