I have gone through this and deleted some old (and even recent) stuff that no longer really applies.
@ Soundofmusicals: "especially in a musician"?! [1] --- Professor JR ( talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonetheless - for all your good work and many valuable contributions - A Kitten for you! --- Professor JR ( talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
The Shaw article is now up for peer review. Though, of course, contributions are most welcome there from all editors, the views of a frequent and, if I may say so, wise contributor to the article such as yourself would be particularly helpful, and greatly appreciated if you have time and inclination to look in. Tim riley talk 12:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Nice work on Citation needed! Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
I just took a look at the Citation Needed page, after a long hiatus, and I very much like the changes that you made. It is one of these pages that I have sort of "adopted" and made various gradual tweaks to over the years, but it never occurred to me to focus on when NOT to use Citation Needed.
At some point, when I have more time (not for a few months), I am going to come back and keep making little tweaks like I always do. I will let you know when I do, and I'll try to keep your contribution intact. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I know that it mentions it lower down the page, but it was more for reasons of recognition and how unique it was, rather than for informational reasons. (i'm not going to change it back though, if you think it doesn't need to be there it probably doesn't) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJIHARKER ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
rather than remove - think of the option - either a footnote or in parenthesis might be better than simply deleting JarrahTree 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That's quite alright. It seemed odd that the same description was applied to two different outcomes - Garros fired "through" the arc, and hit it at least some of the time, whereas the synchronised gun fired "through" the arc, and didn't. It occurred to me at one point that the preposition "between" might serve a purpose somewhere in this passage.
Anyway, please note that I have avoided any puns based on the word "Fokker". It is also a welcome change to receive a response that is polite, collaborative, conciliatory, constructive, self-deprecating, and appreciative. Fokker nell. Hengistmate ( talk) 09:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Paul, I was wondering where you got the information for one of your edits to the the Manfred von Richtofen page, specifically the part where you mention the Baron's machine guns being located at the Imperial War Museum in London. All of my research indicates his machine guns vanished shortly after his death and have not resurfaced since. I was wondering if you've actually seen them or pictures of them at the museum. I recently found what I think is a viable clue as to the final disposition of the guns, but if you can confirm for me that they reside at the IWM, then I'll stop my wild goose chase!
Allen --
Aczuda (
talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed your reversion of my edit to this page, and hope that you reconsider. Although not prohibited by the Manual of Style, one of my pet peeves is the use of such jargon abbreviations when they are not needed and unfamiliar to a general audience. AIR might be used extensively by those who are specialists, or knowledgeable or familiar the Ig Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody, not a specialized group. In this particular instance, it serves no purpose, such as to replace terminology that is repeated frequently throughout the article. It's also unclear whether it's an abbreviation, an acronym, or an initialism - should it be said as the word "air" or as the initials "a.i.r."? - so it doesn't add anything to the article. I have a science background but if I were writing about something published in a journal, I would never write, for example "the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM)" just because an abbreviation can be or is used by insiders. If the article were written for a book or newspaper, the editor would delete the term.
Ira Leviton ( talk) 19:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Regards, Ira
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Similar wishes, from the hot and Summery South! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, som,
When you were working up the Fokker Scourge article, did you come across any info concerning the ace race among the very first victorious German pilots? Georgejdorner ( talk) 04:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed your fairly prompt reversion of my recent edit on this page, and ask you to reconsider.
My issue of using the phrase 'of course' is not one of overuse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where many people come to learn. As used on this page, 'of course' assumes that the reader has knowledge of the stories being discussed. Taking a step back from the subject matter, it is highly unlikely that my ten year old son or my 80 year old grandmother (both imaginary figures, but the type of people I keep in mind when I write articles or make edits) will be familiar with the stories that are mentioned. Additionally, the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not say "don't overuse" phrases like 'of course', it simply says to "avoid" them, and that they "can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone."
Additionally, the historical present is not applied throughout the article, making the tense inconsistent. It's not used consistlently even in the paragraph, and is applied only to Swift. I made that change to be consistent.
Ira Ira Leviton ( talk) 01:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, som,
If you haven't noticed, I am rewriting the above (with the aim of making a GAN). I think you shall find that my upcoming new additions to this article are going to add some insight into the Fokker Scourge. You may want to keep an eye out for that. Georgejdorner ( talk) 00:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, regarding our edits in the Scrooge page, I wonder: could it be a good idea to briefly point out in the incipit that "scrooge" as a name meaing "miser" comes from the character Ebenezer Scrooge? If we don't write that, some people may assume that the opposite thing is true, and come to the wrong conclusion that Dickens named his character Scrooge because it was already an established term for indicating a miser. That wasn't my main reason for editing the page (I edited it to correct the use of italics in an entry of the list), but I am still interested in your opinion on this matter. -- Newblackwhite ( talk) 15:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For All your cotributions to WP. - Samf4u ( talk) 15:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |
A couple years ago a I made small edit to Synchronization gear and have since watched it grow into what I feel is a great article mostly due to your tireless work. - Samf4u ( talk) 15:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry, som, but my fund of knowledge about the mechanics of this aircraft are minimal. I can't help you. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. I found your message interesting, and was impressed you could identify it (that might be worth passing on the IWM as I bet they don't know exactly what the pictures are of). You clearly know an awful lot more than me about the topic; I just stuck in the picture as I found it interesting, because, improvised as it is, I would guess the inventors of more well-known systems worked out the bugs on very similar test-rigs. The details of the development work and the existence of that kind of test rig is not something I've ever seen discussed. Catsmeat ( talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like you to know that a draft page of the poem "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden already exists and it will be a real page soon I'd also like you to check out my contributions to see the draft page, I'm sure you can help us out with it. Can I add the citation back, or do you think it's better if I add it after the actual publication of the page? Leozanoni ( talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are not familiar why red links are used , Ill suggest you read this page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Red_link and after reading it, revert your edit in Hispano-Suiza --> Typ932 T· C 06:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a version of the song that made Top 10 on two major charts. This fact should be at least mentioned somewhere in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I take your point that we should not "ape" references and rather use our own words, however nor should we alter or inflate the meaning of them (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). "Most" has a very different meaning to "many" as I'm sure you will agree. As such, I'll come an alternative way of expressing more accurately the meaning of the reference. Cheers Jschnur ( talk) 02:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how what I posted was trivial. In fact, given supplemental material, it could actually be expanded into its own section; I kept it brief to avoid undue weight issues. If you listen to the podcast (~46 min) on which the RS that I provided is based, there's a great deal of history of the early evolution of the teddy bear and its acceptance into general society, to the point of where it might have faded into obscurity and might only be a museum piece today. No, I'm not suggesting that the podcast itself be used as a RS, especially with the intentional sarcastic bent of the website, but it's well researched and gives a great number of sources at the bottom of the page (not all would be useful of course, like the WP article or the tangential baseball song recording, but most would be). I don't see why this shouldn't be included in the article in some form. Mapsax ( talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I fail to see why it is so terrible to illustrate the mother of a subject. That it is an image within a particular courtly convention of the day hardly matters. I don't understand your objection. Please explain. Johnbod ( talk) 02:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, and I hope your day is going well. I'm just rather confused about your recent revert of my edit to For the Fallen. After I said "nothing wrong with a red-link", You wrote that "Yes there is - when it not only refers to a non-existent article - but a title that would be non-specific if it DID exist." To me, the link (obviously) as it is red, refers to a non-existent article, but is also specific enough, given that there is no other article called 'Authors Declaration' on Wikipedia. While yes, a search of "Authors declaration" comes up with many results on Wikipedia, the only one even remotely notable of an article is the "authors declaration of world war i". Since there are no other logical topics, the natural title for that article would be " Authors Declaration" Would you title it something different? Is there another problem we can resolve? Anyways, happy editing, and best wishes for you to stay safe and healthy. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
=arch 2020 (UTC)
Please add your signature at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 8! Those discussions are best thought of as a theatrical performance where the pretence is that we are not voting, but merely discussing technical matters based on policies. That is, it would be better to mention a (brief) reason that {{ rn}} is useful. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Xcalibur ( talk) 07:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Please could you tell me what is un-"Clean" about my edit of the above subject, after I followed what I saw was the right advice from the previous Editor ? Thank you. Heath St John ( talk) 11:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you. I quite see how the quotation you refer to acknowledges both Scots. and English influences; but I disagree that the mention of "Middle English" 's specific elements, (like "Lang", etc.), by specifying from which era of English the words come, fails to develop the song's language origins. I'll look again, and if it does mention 'Middle English', very well; but if not, it certainly should do. To do so, in this work which culturally straddles the UK's borders, and internationally unites people in celebration, should suggest the united Scots. and English contributions to the title which in its turn unites people further afield. Heath St John ( talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. In those lands, Israel, France, etc., ( probably not Ethiopia), I hope very much the song's intent, (if not the Scotish and (Middle)-English words), unite them in a non-alcoholic-induced camaraderie. I've adopted your suggestion, and put it there. Thanks for your interest. Heath St John ( talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals Hello, there. I ran into an intriguing discussion the other day about when do decades begin? You know where I am going with this. I would like to propose a change on the comprehension of said topic on Wikipedia wide level. With the purpose to correct decade-related sports records regarding beginning and ending of any record by decade and/or century, especially in tennis and well, frankly, ubiquitously. To convince the mass, that decades last(ed) from XX01 - XX09, not XX00 - XX10, and so forth for centuries and millenia, as well. To break the spell of this common worldwide misconception about time, which I, correct me if I am wrong, is called Mandella effect. Anyway, what do you think on the proposal? Are you willing to help me out, or what? Yours sincerely, Qwerty284651 ( talk) 02:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
As I understand the consensus, the article would not display the image in the infobox,and there was a great deal of discussion concerning collapsibility and warnings. Am I mistaken? Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to ask you why did you delete my edit? Yritu ( talk) 14:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I thought it better to discuss here rather than the tp, as this is a grammar issue.
'Purcell's style was a uniquely English form of Baroque music.'
This is wrong, as it uses a noun (uniquely English form of Baroque music) to describe Purcell's style. Ignore the adjectives that describe the music and you'll see what I mean. You need an adjective to describe 'style' and there isn't one.
It seems you might be confused by the possessive 'Purcell's'?
'Jonathan's was a particularly delicious lunch'. The subject is 'Jonathan's lunch'. The sentence is good. At the moment, you would have it say 'Jonathan's style was a particularly delicious lunch'. Please don't restore the error. 'Purcell's was a uniquely English form of Baroque music' is good. Including 'style' is a mistake. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 08:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor who lives up to his name made this comment after trying to help resolve a conflict over binary prefixes (megabytes, MB, MiB, etc) that's been going on far too long (and I've been regrettably involved in sometimes). Thought you might appreciate it! NebY ( talk) 13:41, 11 January 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I have gone through this and deleted some old (and even recent) stuff that no longer really applies.
@ Soundofmusicals: "especially in a musician"?! [1] --- Professor JR ( talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonetheless - for all your good work and many valuable contributions - A Kitten for you! --- Professor JR ( talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
The Shaw article is now up for peer review. Though, of course, contributions are most welcome there from all editors, the views of a frequent and, if I may say so, wise contributor to the article such as yourself would be particularly helpful, and greatly appreciated if you have time and inclination to look in. Tim riley talk 12:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Nice work on Citation needed! Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
I just took a look at the Citation Needed page, after a long hiatus, and I very much like the changes that you made. It is one of these pages that I have sort of "adopted" and made various gradual tweaks to over the years, but it never occurred to me to focus on when NOT to use Citation Needed.
At some point, when I have more time (not for a few months), I am going to come back and keep making little tweaks like I always do. I will let you know when I do, and I'll try to keep your contribution intact. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I know that it mentions it lower down the page, but it was more for reasons of recognition and how unique it was, rather than for informational reasons. (i'm not going to change it back though, if you think it doesn't need to be there it probably doesn't) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJIHARKER ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
rather than remove - think of the option - either a footnote or in parenthesis might be better than simply deleting JarrahTree 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That's quite alright. It seemed odd that the same description was applied to two different outcomes - Garros fired "through" the arc, and hit it at least some of the time, whereas the synchronised gun fired "through" the arc, and didn't. It occurred to me at one point that the preposition "between" might serve a purpose somewhere in this passage.
Anyway, please note that I have avoided any puns based on the word "Fokker". It is also a welcome change to receive a response that is polite, collaborative, conciliatory, constructive, self-deprecating, and appreciative. Fokker nell. Hengistmate ( talk) 09:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Paul, I was wondering where you got the information for one of your edits to the the Manfred von Richtofen page, specifically the part where you mention the Baron's machine guns being located at the Imperial War Museum in London. All of my research indicates his machine guns vanished shortly after his death and have not resurfaced since. I was wondering if you've actually seen them or pictures of them at the museum. I recently found what I think is a viable clue as to the final disposition of the guns, but if you can confirm for me that they reside at the IWM, then I'll stop my wild goose chase!
Allen --
Aczuda (
talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed your reversion of my edit to this page, and hope that you reconsider. Although not prohibited by the Manual of Style, one of my pet peeves is the use of such jargon abbreviations when they are not needed and unfamiliar to a general audience. AIR might be used extensively by those who are specialists, or knowledgeable or familiar the Ig Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody, not a specialized group. In this particular instance, it serves no purpose, such as to replace terminology that is repeated frequently throughout the article. It's also unclear whether it's an abbreviation, an acronym, or an initialism - should it be said as the word "air" or as the initials "a.i.r."? - so it doesn't add anything to the article. I have a science background but if I were writing about something published in a journal, I would never write, for example "the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM)" just because an abbreviation can be or is used by insiders. If the article were written for a book or newspaper, the editor would delete the term.
Ira Leviton ( talk) 19:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Regards, Ira
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Similar wishes, from the hot and Summery South! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, som,
When you were working up the Fokker Scourge article, did you come across any info concerning the ace race among the very first victorious German pilots? Georgejdorner ( talk) 04:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed your fairly prompt reversion of my recent edit on this page, and ask you to reconsider.
My issue of using the phrase 'of course' is not one of overuse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where many people come to learn. As used on this page, 'of course' assumes that the reader has knowledge of the stories being discussed. Taking a step back from the subject matter, it is highly unlikely that my ten year old son or my 80 year old grandmother (both imaginary figures, but the type of people I keep in mind when I write articles or make edits) will be familiar with the stories that are mentioned. Additionally, the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not say "don't overuse" phrases like 'of course', it simply says to "avoid" them, and that they "can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone."
Additionally, the historical present is not applied throughout the article, making the tense inconsistent. It's not used consistlently even in the paragraph, and is applied only to Swift. I made that change to be consistent.
Ira Ira Leviton ( talk) 01:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, som,
If you haven't noticed, I am rewriting the above (with the aim of making a GAN). I think you shall find that my upcoming new additions to this article are going to add some insight into the Fokker Scourge. You may want to keep an eye out for that. Georgejdorner ( talk) 00:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, regarding our edits in the Scrooge page, I wonder: could it be a good idea to briefly point out in the incipit that "scrooge" as a name meaing "miser" comes from the character Ebenezer Scrooge? If we don't write that, some people may assume that the opposite thing is true, and come to the wrong conclusion that Dickens named his character Scrooge because it was already an established term for indicating a miser. That wasn't my main reason for editing the page (I edited it to correct the use of italics in an entry of the list), but I am still interested in your opinion on this matter. -- Newblackwhite ( talk) 15:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For All your cotributions to WP. - Samf4u ( talk) 15:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |
A couple years ago a I made small edit to Synchronization gear and have since watched it grow into what I feel is a great article mostly due to your tireless work. - Samf4u ( talk) 15:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry, som, but my fund of knowledge about the mechanics of this aircraft are minimal. I can't help you. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. I found your message interesting, and was impressed you could identify it (that might be worth passing on the IWM as I bet they don't know exactly what the pictures are of). You clearly know an awful lot more than me about the topic; I just stuck in the picture as I found it interesting, because, improvised as it is, I would guess the inventors of more well-known systems worked out the bugs on very similar test-rigs. The details of the development work and the existence of that kind of test rig is not something I've ever seen discussed. Catsmeat ( talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like you to know that a draft page of the poem "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden already exists and it will be a real page soon I'd also like you to check out my contributions to see the draft page, I'm sure you can help us out with it. Can I add the citation back, or do you think it's better if I add it after the actual publication of the page? Leozanoni ( talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are not familiar why red links are used , Ill suggest you read this page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Red_link and after reading it, revert your edit in Hispano-Suiza --> Typ932 T· C 06:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a version of the song that made Top 10 on two major charts. This fact should be at least mentioned somewhere in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I take your point that we should not "ape" references and rather use our own words, however nor should we alter or inflate the meaning of them (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). "Most" has a very different meaning to "many" as I'm sure you will agree. As such, I'll come an alternative way of expressing more accurately the meaning of the reference. Cheers Jschnur ( talk) 02:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how what I posted was trivial. In fact, given supplemental material, it could actually be expanded into its own section; I kept it brief to avoid undue weight issues. If you listen to the podcast (~46 min) on which the RS that I provided is based, there's a great deal of history of the early evolution of the teddy bear and its acceptance into general society, to the point of where it might have faded into obscurity and might only be a museum piece today. No, I'm not suggesting that the podcast itself be used as a RS, especially with the intentional sarcastic bent of the website, but it's well researched and gives a great number of sources at the bottom of the page (not all would be useful of course, like the WP article or the tangential baseball song recording, but most would be). I don't see why this shouldn't be included in the article in some form. Mapsax ( talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I fail to see why it is so terrible to illustrate the mother of a subject. That it is an image within a particular courtly convention of the day hardly matters. I don't understand your objection. Please explain. Johnbod ( talk) 02:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, and I hope your day is going well. I'm just rather confused about your recent revert of my edit to For the Fallen. After I said "nothing wrong with a red-link", You wrote that "Yes there is - when it not only refers to a non-existent article - but a title that would be non-specific if it DID exist." To me, the link (obviously) as it is red, refers to a non-existent article, but is also specific enough, given that there is no other article called 'Authors Declaration' on Wikipedia. While yes, a search of "Authors declaration" comes up with many results on Wikipedia, the only one even remotely notable of an article is the "authors declaration of world war i". Since there are no other logical topics, the natural title for that article would be " Authors Declaration" Would you title it something different? Is there another problem we can resolve? Anyways, happy editing, and best wishes for you to stay safe and healthy. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
=arch 2020 (UTC)
Please add your signature at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 8! Those discussions are best thought of as a theatrical performance where the pretence is that we are not voting, but merely discussing technical matters based on policies. That is, it would be better to mention a (brief) reason that {{ rn}} is useful. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Xcalibur ( talk) 07:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Please could you tell me what is un-"Clean" about my edit of the above subject, after I followed what I saw was the right advice from the previous Editor ? Thank you. Heath St John ( talk) 11:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you. I quite see how the quotation you refer to acknowledges both Scots. and English influences; but I disagree that the mention of "Middle English" 's specific elements, (like "Lang", etc.), by specifying from which era of English the words come, fails to develop the song's language origins. I'll look again, and if it does mention 'Middle English', very well; but if not, it certainly should do. To do so, in this work which culturally straddles the UK's borders, and internationally unites people in celebration, should suggest the united Scots. and English contributions to the title which in its turn unites people further afield. Heath St John ( talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. In those lands, Israel, France, etc., ( probably not Ethiopia), I hope very much the song's intent, (if not the Scotish and (Middle)-English words), unite them in a non-alcoholic-induced camaraderie. I've adopted your suggestion, and put it there. Thanks for your interest. Heath St John ( talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals Hello, there. I ran into an intriguing discussion the other day about when do decades begin? You know where I am going with this. I would like to propose a change on the comprehension of said topic on Wikipedia wide level. With the purpose to correct decade-related sports records regarding beginning and ending of any record by decade and/or century, especially in tennis and well, frankly, ubiquitously. To convince the mass, that decades last(ed) from XX01 - XX09, not XX00 - XX10, and so forth for centuries and millenia, as well. To break the spell of this common worldwide misconception about time, which I, correct me if I am wrong, is called Mandella effect. Anyway, what do you think on the proposal? Are you willing to help me out, or what? Yours sincerely, Qwerty284651 ( talk) 02:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
As I understand the consensus, the article would not display the image in the infobox,and there was a great deal of discussion concerning collapsibility and warnings. Am I mistaken? Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to ask you why did you delete my edit? Yritu ( talk) 14:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I thought it better to discuss here rather than the tp, as this is a grammar issue.
'Purcell's style was a uniquely English form of Baroque music.'
This is wrong, as it uses a noun (uniquely English form of Baroque music) to describe Purcell's style. Ignore the adjectives that describe the music and you'll see what I mean. You need an adjective to describe 'style' and there isn't one.
It seems you might be confused by the possessive 'Purcell's'?
'Jonathan's was a particularly delicious lunch'. The subject is 'Jonathan's lunch'. The sentence is good. At the moment, you would have it say 'Jonathan's style was a particularly delicious lunch'. Please don't restore the error. 'Purcell's was a uniquely English form of Baroque music' is good. Including 'style' is a mistake. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 08:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor who lives up to his name made this comment after trying to help resolve a conflict over binary prefixes (megabytes, MB, MiB, etc) that's been going on far too long (and I've been regrettably involved in sometimes). Thought you might appreciate it! NebY ( talk) 13:41, 11 January 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)