Welcome to my talk page!
Hi UglowT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afghans in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2011 census ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rudky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Most of them are fine. However, the transclusion of {{
As of}} (such as {{As of|1995}}, there were 50 minority-language newspapers published in Xinjiang, including the
Qapqal News, the world's only
Xibe-language newspaper.
) automatically places such articles into (or sub-categories), which assists editors whose speciality is to update outdated statements. Needless to say, this is particular problematic with population statistics. Please desist in this case. TLA
3x ♭ →
♮ 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sikkim may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you changing the use of "as of", as here? It is normal English. [1]. You appear to be making this change in dozens of articles -- why? Please stop and please revert yourself. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Epeefleche ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Very well, I'll stop until we iron this out.
I'm not convinced your interpretation of the meaning of "as of" is "accepted English usage". And nor does your argument unequivocally reconcile with the definition given in Merriam Webster. I'll have to wait to check a print copy of Merriam Webster, but my Random House Webster says this: "as of, beginning on; on and after; from: This price is effective as of June 23."
There is quite a difference between a duration and a moment in time. To use "as of" to mean the latter is incorrect or at best poor style.
The instances I have changed have been for the better. UglowT ( talk) 20:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, please continue the conversation here.
I'm afraid that website does not count as an established authority. Quite the contrary. UglowT ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche is correct here. I found this source rather quickly, but there are others. It makes the overall point that "as of" does reference time, and there are places where it is the most suitable way to phrase someting. But more to the issue at hand, Uglow offers ZERO sources for his/her assertion that it is "terrible English." No, it is standard use in certain contexts. We can say "at two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F, or "as of two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F" with about equal validity, depending on the nuance needed; we would not say "from two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F" - that's just bizarre. Montanabw (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting my edits? It is most improper. This conversation has not finished whatsoever. There is still a long way to go yet. I am busy today. It must be taken into consideration that people have lives that don't involve Wikipedia. Reverting my edits en masse is extremely premature. Please save everybody's time by desisting. UglowT ( talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, you must wait until all the evidence has been examined and a proper debate has been had, rather than jumping the gun in this way. I will reply to what has been said when I have more time, but until then these actions must stop. UglowT ( talk) 17:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to my talk page!
Hi UglowT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afghans in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2011 census ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rudky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Most of them are fine. However, the transclusion of {{
As of}} (such as {{As of|1995}}, there were 50 minority-language newspapers published in Xinjiang, including the
Qapqal News, the world's only
Xibe-language newspaper.
) automatically places such articles into (or sub-categories), which assists editors whose speciality is to update outdated statements. Needless to say, this is particular problematic with population statistics. Please desist in this case. TLA
3x ♭ →
♮ 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sikkim may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you changing the use of "as of", as here? It is normal English. [1]. You appear to be making this change in dozens of articles -- why? Please stop and please revert yourself. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Epeefleche ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Very well, I'll stop until we iron this out.
I'm not convinced your interpretation of the meaning of "as of" is "accepted English usage". And nor does your argument unequivocally reconcile with the definition given in Merriam Webster. I'll have to wait to check a print copy of Merriam Webster, but my Random House Webster says this: "as of, beginning on; on and after; from: This price is effective as of June 23."
There is quite a difference between a duration and a moment in time. To use "as of" to mean the latter is incorrect or at best poor style.
The instances I have changed have been for the better. UglowT ( talk) 20:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, please continue the conversation here.
I'm afraid that website does not count as an established authority. Quite the contrary. UglowT ( talk) 21:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche is correct here. I found this source rather quickly, but there are others. It makes the overall point that "as of" does reference time, and there are places where it is the most suitable way to phrase someting. But more to the issue at hand, Uglow offers ZERO sources for his/her assertion that it is "terrible English." No, it is standard use in certain contexts. We can say "at two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F, or "as of two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F" with about equal validity, depending on the nuance needed; we would not say "from two 'o clock, it was 85 degrees F" - that's just bizarre. Montanabw (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting my edits? It is most improper. This conversation has not finished whatsoever. There is still a long way to go yet. I am busy today. It must be taken into consideration that people have lives that don't involve Wikipedia. Reverting my edits en masse is extremely premature. Please save everybody's time by desisting. UglowT ( talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, you must wait until all the evidence has been examined and a proper debate has been had, rather than jumping the gun in this way. I will reply to what has been said when I have more time, but until then these actions must stop. UglowT ( talk) 17:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)