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. |
2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
Sorry I was a bit slow getting the AfD page edits up - is there any chance I can get you to check through to make sure I've completed the process correctly? Tiredgrad ( talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
How is it that you would approve posting album artwork & external LINKS for this page:
Andre Saint-Albin
I looked at other pages for external link examples:
Fedde le Grand +
Armin van Buuren
The links were put just like those two pages and yet it gets removed??? Just looking for some clarification.
Thanks — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shawnkevin007 (
talk •
contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content; Commons:Licensing therefore, you cannot upload those images to Commons. Also, those images are not your own work, which you claimed when you uploaded them there. A Commons admin has since deleted the images. — JJMC89 05:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
U added a tag to my page titled Neel Ranjan Mukherjee for speedy deletion even though there is no reason to. Why then? Oishid3006 ( talk) 06:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I often like to archive twice because sometimes one archive isn't working and it's good to have another one just in case! WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Can you please explain why did you deleted Tourism in Brahmanbaria? We are here to make wikipedia better, but some of you guys ruining it. -- Bangla1234 ( talk) 21:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Bangla1234 ( talk)
Unsourced. — JJMC89 21:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be malfunctioning and I have notified legoktm on IRC. Reverting the bot is just pointless as it is just going to put it back until it is fixed. Perhaps once a day just to see if the problem is fixed, otherwise you are fighting a machine that can't really adjust its programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majora ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, if you don't mind, I'm curious what your rationale is for removing Filmibeat across numerous Indian cinema articles. Was there a detailed discussion that you are privy to, and that I am not? Just wondering, thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi JJMC, you reverted my changes at the CSD page quoting that I was making a change in policy. For records, I was not making a change in policy. I was providing definitions for the wordings of the policy via a footnote as per the practice followed while tagging articles with A11. If you wish, you may undo your revert. Irrespective, I have also put up the note at the talk page. Do please give suggestions on how the wordings should be. Thanks. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 05:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Two days ago, you emptied
Category:Music (by genre and nationality), which I created and filled. I perceive your revert as a mistake, as you are interrupting the work on the category system.
I believe you are not familiar with the category system, as you reverted edits, which were based on the same logic as is the rest of the category system. There is no need for discussion if I correct a grammatical error. The reverted expansion of the category system was as logical and beyond discussion as are the rules of correct writing. Did you LOOK at the rest of the surrounding system, before reverting?
Maybe I seemed suspect to you, because I made a formal mistake in the title, but you are mistaken if you assume, that I have no idea of what I am doing.
Wikipedia:Be_bold#Category_namespace mentions
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but this has nothing to do with my edit, as CFR is for renaming, merging or deletion of categories. My edit is uncontroversial, as it doesn't reorganizing the category structure, only expands it.
I would like you to revert your revert.
CN1 (
talk) 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
if what you're doing might be considered controversial ..., propose changes at Categories for discussion. The fact that I reverted your change, makes it possibly controversial since someone opposes it.
We use brackets in category names only where the content of the brackets would be unlikely to show up in normal prose.— JJMC89 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Struck: 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
honor badges and titlesyou are talking about; I don't have barnstars or the like plastered on my userpage. Since your account is less than two years old with less than 300 edits, I'm going to assume that you did most of this work before creating your account. — JJMC89 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I see you reverted his/her edits, actually I wonder if it is not a sockpuppet for the blocked multi-accounts Josephina Obama. -- Minorities observer ( talk) 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89. Something you added to the above page is causing it to appear in Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Can you have a look please and see if you can figure out what it is? Thanks, — Diannaa ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm an admin now? Awesome! :) (You beat me to it by the way!) RickinBaltimore ( talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I've only just noticed that the task was approved. I see some progress has been made, but no edits by your bot for more than a week. Is there a problem? Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
With thanks for helping us finally clean up the banner shell templates! — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks again for your help with my template. I notice you removed all spaces between braces. As a noob, }}}}}}}}}
is a pretty opaque, whereas I am much more able to visually parse }} }}} }} }}
and read its structure in relation to the rest of the statement. Are spaces dodgy programmatically, or is this more a matter of style? Thanks.
Phil wink (
talk) 14:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
<poem>...</poem>
as was done for <ref>...</ref>
, so that <poem>...</poem>
don't have to be used in each instance. I can go through the sandbox and make that and some other adjustments if you like. —
JJMC89 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
{{{param|<poem>...</poem>
}}}
to {{
#tag:poem|{{{param|...}}}}}
, so <poem>...</poem>
doesn't need to be used when transcluding the template. I also moved the example text out of the template code. The documentation should be moved to
Template:Sonnet/doc when {{
Sonnet}} is replaced. {{
Quote box}} probably shouldn't have been used since its documentation says not to use it in articles. The code looks good to me. Consider using different parameter names. The only one that I know what it is for is |S=
. Maybe use |footnote=
or |source=
. Something else to consider is that other templates that use a parameter to include a reference, expect the value to have <ref>...</ref>
. This would also allow for shortened footnotes (templates like {{
sfn}}) that don't get wrapped in <ref>...</ref>
to be used. If this referencing style isn't being used then it doesn't matter. Will |Q=
and/or |L=
ever be anything other than the default? —
JJMC89 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
instead. Because this structure was being repurposed, effectively as a container for an infobox, I think the use was well within the spirit of the law.<ref>...</ref>
into the value will make the template more standardized (as well as flexible for possible future uses) then I think that's the way to go. I should be able to do that myself.I think the template and documentation are pretty tight now. Several years ago, an automated update was performed to improve the transclusions of this template. (The discussion is here if you care... I don't know if this is even still the proper venue.) I wonder if the same thing can be done again now. The process would be considerably more complex in this case. What do you think? I'm happy to write up the update in detail, but would you be willing to look over my shoulder, and ensure that it is adequately descriptive? and maybe point me (if you know) to the person or group I should ask? First, I'm going to try to get some consensus for the change (which I expect will consist of no one saying either "no" or "yes"), then work on the update itself. Of course if this just has to be done manually, I can do that too. Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
|4=
value, and let me sort it out manually. (E.g. for your purposes, none of the existing templates will have a |source=
, even though a handful of them actually do.)|stanzas=
and |linenumbers=
(formerly "Q" & "L") values where necessary.|stanzas=
and |linenumbers=
in these cases (since they won't align correctly), and in the medium term I plan to re-enter and cite all texts, which will get them back to a simple state.
Phil wink (
talk) 14:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)@ Phil wink: I was considering basing it on {{ Infobox}}. That would have allowed for headings and multiple text versions. I would have had to nest HTML tables inside it though. I might make some small adjustments to it but you can take a look at my sandbox in comparison to {{ Sonnet/sandbox}}.
Parameters and changes
|
---|
{{Sonnet | number = <!-- Optional, overrides automatic detection of the sonnet page transcluded on --> | image = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | image_size = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | image_upright = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | alt = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | caption = <!-- Image caption --> | stanzas = | line_numbers = | sonnet_text = | source = }}
|
I don't know if I'm happy with then name |sonnet_text=
. I'm more than happy to write up the /doc when this is finalized. Thoughts? As for rolling it out, I'll code a special version into {{
Sonnet}} to use during the roll out which can be replaced with the sandbox when I'm done. —
JJMC89 02:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
<br />[[File:Floral heart.svg|x20px]]
). Total separation (e.g. putting a bottom border on the caption's row of the table) is, I think, far too strong. I find my solution acceptable, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. Ideas?upright
as it will scale with a user's preference selection. I suggest testing with different preference options set. I think
this might be a good fit as a separator under the caption. I made some fontsize changes; however, note that the 125% for the poem is the same as 100% was previously due to another change. I'm not a fan of large fonts but I guess you could increase it some. Please consider the
font size, color, and font family sections of the MOS. I fixed the centering issue. Another thing to note about mobile is that the line numbers and stanza indicators are not likely to align with the text. I might be able to find a way to hide them in mobile. —
JJMC89 05:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)I think we need to re-evaluate where this template is headed. Your earlier work was really helpful (and I quite like your suggested rule graphic), but it seems to me that the addition of the infobox elements has been a setback. You've already spent a lot of time (and more is required) fixing problems they caused, but I'm genuinely unaware of any problems they've solved. Currently, we have a template where
Problems like these suggest that the basic assumptions of the infobox elements -- include many stacked discrete labeled elements, shrink content, wrap content to maintain narrow table -- are actually contrary to the needs of the sonnet template. We are displaying verse, not housing data. I hate to think of you spending a lot of time and energy turning this ferret into a horse when we've already got a donkey to work with. Are there, indeed, any actual problems with {{ Sonnet/sandbox}} as it now stands that you think we need to solve? Phil wink ( talk) 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
lead images should usually use upright=1.35
at most.
—
JJMC89 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
just a thought. Winterysteppe ( talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask the reason why you removed the category "Computer-aided engineering" from this article: /info/en/?search=SimScale ? It is the most relevant for it, as it is a CAE platform. I'm happy to give you more information if you need it. Thank you! Andreea Zaha ( talk) 09:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Zaha ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, OK, thank you!
May I also ask which are the parts written as advertisement? I made some edits to fix it but it seems you restored the tag. I'm open to change more details, just point them out to me, please. Andreea Zaha ( talk) 09:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the effort you put to edit the page. May I now remove the "advertisement" tag? Andreea Zaha ( talk) 10:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
See [1]. This banned user is prone to doing necessary vandalism reverts before moving on to other activities. So you have to be careful to check all of his edits before hitting the rollback button -- most of the reverts were right -- but this one takes a little more care to revert than your average sockpuppet. Courcelles ( talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've been assigned Elizabeth Hanson to research for my history class and part of the assignment is writing a Wikipedia article about her. I see you've already been hard at work and would like to add some information if you are comfortable with that. I have some other sources I would like to include as well. The due date is Friday and I'll upload my version then if I don't hear otherwise. Great work and glad we share an interest in Elizabeth Hanson. Jacquelyncs ( talk) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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. |
2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
Sorry I was a bit slow getting the AfD page edits up - is there any chance I can get you to check through to make sure I've completed the process correctly? Tiredgrad ( talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
How is it that you would approve posting album artwork & external LINKS for this page:
Andre Saint-Albin
I looked at other pages for external link examples:
Fedde le Grand +
Armin van Buuren
The links were put just like those two pages and yet it gets removed??? Just looking for some clarification.
Thanks — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shawnkevin007 (
talk •
contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content; Commons:Licensing therefore, you cannot upload those images to Commons. Also, those images are not your own work, which you claimed when you uploaded them there. A Commons admin has since deleted the images. — JJMC89 05:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
U added a tag to my page titled Neel Ranjan Mukherjee for speedy deletion even though there is no reason to. Why then? Oishid3006 ( talk) 06:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I often like to archive twice because sometimes one archive isn't working and it's good to have another one just in case! WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Can you please explain why did you deleted Tourism in Brahmanbaria? We are here to make wikipedia better, but some of you guys ruining it. -- Bangla1234 ( talk) 21:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Bangla1234 ( talk)
Unsourced. — JJMC89 21:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be malfunctioning and I have notified legoktm on IRC. Reverting the bot is just pointless as it is just going to put it back until it is fixed. Perhaps once a day just to see if the problem is fixed, otherwise you are fighting a machine that can't really adjust its programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majora ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, if you don't mind, I'm curious what your rationale is for removing Filmibeat across numerous Indian cinema articles. Was there a detailed discussion that you are privy to, and that I am not? Just wondering, thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi JJMC, you reverted my changes at the CSD page quoting that I was making a change in policy. For records, I was not making a change in policy. I was providing definitions for the wordings of the policy via a footnote as per the practice followed while tagging articles with A11. If you wish, you may undo your revert. Irrespective, I have also put up the note at the talk page. Do please give suggestions on how the wordings should be. Thanks. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 05:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Two days ago, you emptied
Category:Music (by genre and nationality), which I created and filled. I perceive your revert as a mistake, as you are interrupting the work on the category system.
I believe you are not familiar with the category system, as you reverted edits, which were based on the same logic as is the rest of the category system. There is no need for discussion if I correct a grammatical error. The reverted expansion of the category system was as logical and beyond discussion as are the rules of correct writing. Did you LOOK at the rest of the surrounding system, before reverting?
Maybe I seemed suspect to you, because I made a formal mistake in the title, but you are mistaken if you assume, that I have no idea of what I am doing.
Wikipedia:Be_bold#Category_namespace mentions
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but this has nothing to do with my edit, as CFR is for renaming, merging or deletion of categories. My edit is uncontroversial, as it doesn't reorganizing the category structure, only expands it.
I would like you to revert your revert.
CN1 (
talk) 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
if what you're doing might be considered controversial ..., propose changes at Categories for discussion. The fact that I reverted your change, makes it possibly controversial since someone opposes it.
We use brackets in category names only where the content of the brackets would be unlikely to show up in normal prose.— JJMC89 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Struck: 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
honor badges and titlesyou are talking about; I don't have barnstars or the like plastered on my userpage. Since your account is less than two years old with less than 300 edits, I'm going to assume that you did most of this work before creating your account. — JJMC89 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I see you reverted his/her edits, actually I wonder if it is not a sockpuppet for the blocked multi-accounts Josephina Obama. -- Minorities observer ( talk) 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89. Something you added to the above page is causing it to appear in Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Can you have a look please and see if you can figure out what it is? Thanks, — Diannaa ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm an admin now? Awesome! :) (You beat me to it by the way!) RickinBaltimore ( talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I've only just noticed that the task was approved. I see some progress has been made, but no edits by your bot for more than a week. Is there a problem? Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
With thanks for helping us finally clean up the banner shell templates! — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks again for your help with my template. I notice you removed all spaces between braces. As a noob, }}}}}}}}}
is a pretty opaque, whereas I am much more able to visually parse }} }}} }} }}
and read its structure in relation to the rest of the statement. Are spaces dodgy programmatically, or is this more a matter of style? Thanks.
Phil wink (
talk) 14:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
<poem>...</poem>
as was done for <ref>...</ref>
, so that <poem>...</poem>
don't have to be used in each instance. I can go through the sandbox and make that and some other adjustments if you like. —
JJMC89 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
{{{param|<poem>...</poem>
}}}
to {{
#tag:poem|{{{param|...}}}}}
, so <poem>...</poem>
doesn't need to be used when transcluding the template. I also moved the example text out of the template code. The documentation should be moved to
Template:Sonnet/doc when {{
Sonnet}} is replaced. {{
Quote box}} probably shouldn't have been used since its documentation says not to use it in articles. The code looks good to me. Consider using different parameter names. The only one that I know what it is for is |S=
. Maybe use |footnote=
or |source=
. Something else to consider is that other templates that use a parameter to include a reference, expect the value to have <ref>...</ref>
. This would also allow for shortened footnotes (templates like {{
sfn}}) that don't get wrapped in <ref>...</ref>
to be used. If this referencing style isn't being used then it doesn't matter. Will |Q=
and/or |L=
ever be anything other than the default? —
JJMC89 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
instead. Because this structure was being repurposed, effectively as a container for an infobox, I think the use was well within the spirit of the law.<ref>...</ref>
into the value will make the template more standardized (as well as flexible for possible future uses) then I think that's the way to go. I should be able to do that myself.I think the template and documentation are pretty tight now. Several years ago, an automated update was performed to improve the transclusions of this template. (The discussion is here if you care... I don't know if this is even still the proper venue.) I wonder if the same thing can be done again now. The process would be considerably more complex in this case. What do you think? I'm happy to write up the update in detail, but would you be willing to look over my shoulder, and ensure that it is adequately descriptive? and maybe point me (if you know) to the person or group I should ask? First, I'm going to try to get some consensus for the change (which I expect will consist of no one saying either "no" or "yes"), then work on the update itself. Of course if this just has to be done manually, I can do that too. Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
|4=
value, and let me sort it out manually. (E.g. for your purposes, none of the existing templates will have a |source=
, even though a handful of them actually do.)|stanzas=
and |linenumbers=
(formerly "Q" & "L") values where necessary.|stanzas=
and |linenumbers=
in these cases (since they won't align correctly), and in the medium term I plan to re-enter and cite all texts, which will get them back to a simple state.
Phil wink (
talk) 14:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)@ Phil wink: I was considering basing it on {{ Infobox}}. That would have allowed for headings and multiple text versions. I would have had to nest HTML tables inside it though. I might make some small adjustments to it but you can take a look at my sandbox in comparison to {{ Sonnet/sandbox}}.
Parameters and changes
|
---|
{{Sonnet | number = <!-- Optional, overrides automatic detection of the sonnet page transcluded on --> | image = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | image_size = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | image_upright = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | alt = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person --> | caption = <!-- Image caption --> | stanzas = | line_numbers = | sonnet_text = | source = }}
|
I don't know if I'm happy with then name |sonnet_text=
. I'm more than happy to write up the /doc when this is finalized. Thoughts? As for rolling it out, I'll code a special version into {{
Sonnet}} to use during the roll out which can be replaced with the sandbox when I'm done. —
JJMC89 02:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
<br />[[File:Floral heart.svg|x20px]]
). Total separation (e.g. putting a bottom border on the caption's row of the table) is, I think, far too strong. I find my solution acceptable, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. Ideas?upright
as it will scale with a user's preference selection. I suggest testing with different preference options set. I think
this might be a good fit as a separator under the caption. I made some fontsize changes; however, note that the 125% for the poem is the same as 100% was previously due to another change. I'm not a fan of large fonts but I guess you could increase it some. Please consider the
font size, color, and font family sections of the MOS. I fixed the centering issue. Another thing to note about mobile is that the line numbers and stanza indicators are not likely to align with the text. I might be able to find a way to hide them in mobile. —
JJMC89 05:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)I think we need to re-evaluate where this template is headed. Your earlier work was really helpful (and I quite like your suggested rule graphic), but it seems to me that the addition of the infobox elements has been a setback. You've already spent a lot of time (and more is required) fixing problems they caused, but I'm genuinely unaware of any problems they've solved. Currently, we have a template where
Problems like these suggest that the basic assumptions of the infobox elements -- include many stacked discrete labeled elements, shrink content, wrap content to maintain narrow table -- are actually contrary to the needs of the sonnet template. We are displaying verse, not housing data. I hate to think of you spending a lot of time and energy turning this ferret into a horse when we've already got a donkey to work with. Are there, indeed, any actual problems with {{ Sonnet/sandbox}} as it now stands that you think we need to solve? Phil wink ( talk) 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
lead images should usually use upright=1.35
at most.
—
JJMC89 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
just a thought. Winterysteppe ( talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask the reason why you removed the category "Computer-aided engineering" from this article: /info/en/?search=SimScale ? It is the most relevant for it, as it is a CAE platform. I'm happy to give you more information if you need it. Thank you! Andreea Zaha ( talk) 09:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Zaha ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, OK, thank you!
May I also ask which are the parts written as advertisement? I made some edits to fix it but it seems you restored the tag. I'm open to change more details, just point them out to me, please. Andreea Zaha ( talk) 09:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the effort you put to edit the page. May I now remove the "advertisement" tag? Andreea Zaha ( talk) 10:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
See [1]. This banned user is prone to doing necessary vandalism reverts before moving on to other activities. So you have to be careful to check all of his edits before hitting the rollback button -- most of the reverts were right -- but this one takes a little more care to revert than your average sockpuppet. Courcelles ( talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've been assigned Elizabeth Hanson to research for my history class and part of the assignment is writing a Wikipedia article about her. I see you've already been hard at work and would like to add some information if you are comfortable with that. I have some other sources I would like to include as well. The due date is Friday and I'll upload my version then if I don't hear otherwise. Great work and glad we share an interest in Elizabeth Hanson. Jacquelyncs ( talk) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)