Hi MarchOrDie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC) |
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MarchOrDie. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Mediran talk to me! 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with Little Moreton Hall, which I've now nominated for GA. I'd really like one day to get it to FA, but I know that's a big step up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Please clarify your changes to the article. You can clarify here or in the talk section of the article itself. The changes you have made seem to be conjecture to me and it would help if you would add some cites to the support your supposition. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult to get people to reduce usage down to what Garner's and Chicago recommend; the WP:MOS page uses "however" 17 times, not counting the subsection on "however". If it's important to you, and if you plan to do more reviewing at FAC, I'll try a bit harder to make the case ... but, I've been making the case for years on Wikipedia and years before that, and ... it's not an easy battle to win. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've just removed a grouchy and unfair comment about your review of the F-4 article which I'd never meant to post. I apologise especially for the last bit, as it isn't the slightest bit true (and note that I always try to be totally fair in the reviews I post). The rest of the comments were a much ruder version of the feedback I was planning to provide to you at the conclusion of the review (in short, please don't post 'oppose' votes which aren't simultaneously accompanied by actionable concerns or which relate to material which can be easily fixed by the nominator). I very much appreciate your comments, and think that they've resulted in a stronger article, but the way you've presented them is quite frustrating due to your decision to post an 'oppose' vote for what are minor issues. Again, I'm very sorry for accidentally posting my stress-relieving vent, and apologise for the offense I've caused. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You removed information regarding restrictions of civil use of the .338 Lapua Magnum chambering that was and is backed by Wikipedia articles which were internally referenced to.
From Gun politics in Mexico - Type of firearms permitted: High-powered rifles, of repeating or semi-automatic function, non-convertible to full-auto, with the exception of .30 caliber carbines, rifles, moskets and carbines caliber .223, 7 and 7.62mm, and Garand rifles caliber .30.
From Gun politics in Italy - Limitations: Italian gun laws pose restrictions to the kind of firearms and calibers available to civilians. Full-automatic/select-fire firearms (machineguns), grenade launchers, destructive devices and all other kinds of military weapons are forbidden; a prohibited caliber is expressly the 9mm Parabellum, and as a matter of fact all military ammunition (such as 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, .50-BMG and up) are not available to the public. On the other hand, standard military calibers such as 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO are available in civilian loads and with civilian denominations (such as .223 Remington, .308 Winchester). Semi-automatic firearms can be bought by licensees without additional restrictions.
I did not write these gun politics articles and what you or I think regarding such gun politics and their limitations is irrelevant for the lawmakers in these jurisdictions.
I assumed you removed the internally referenced information in good faith.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Laws are generally written in the official language(s) of the jurisdiction. It is not reasonable to expect that laws are translated into English when English is not an official language of that jurisdiction. Gun and hunting laws in jurisdictions that pose severe limitations (Europe is full of them) are also of no interest to many local citizens, since they are not allowed to own and use guns anyhow. So traveling with guns and ammunition to other jurisdictions in real life means one has to pay attention in general and doing homework to avoid problems.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, would you please be sure to engage with 7part before modifying any more of his edits en-masse? thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Please reconsider your involvement here and try to refocus it in a more competent and considered way.—pardon me, I can't parse this and I have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh? So what does this edit summary mean then?—It means exactly what it says: I am hoping you two and others can come to some agreement before mass-editing articles again. Why are you so combative here? I made a big deal about it on 7part's talk page, and I was thinking it would be pretty frustrating for 7part if you continued any of these edits without discussion after I had said that and 7part had started trying to engage in a more constructive way—because of that I wanted to drop you a note here.
Perhaps if you were to think about your involvement here—I haven't forgotten my edit, but I still don't understand your point. If you have one that you are interested in getting across, please lay it out clearly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You'll get more mileage when you mediate by not joining the dispute yourself—I'm not trying to mediate anything, MarchOrDie. My only goal here was to try to get 7part to not make these edits again without getting everyone on board. In any case, though, I disagree—often the disputants are the ideal mediators; if things can be worked out among the editors involved that is usually best, I think.
Chiding someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done yourself looks... bad—Oh dear; what did I do? I chided 7part for making dozens of edits that he knew were controversial and I chided you for your belligerence and this, which is not an acceptable approach to editing here. What are you referring to? If I behaved poorly in all this I apologize and would certainly appreciate an explicit pointer; I'm having trouble reading between the lines here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For contributing 1,095 diverse Wikispace edits faster than any new user I have ever seen (just 44 days)! Quite an impressive accomplishment, well done! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
Doesn't one normally talk about prisoners being "put to labour" rather than "put to work"? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I overhauled Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection by removing much of the trivia (for which I could not find reliable sources) and adding a "Shared themes" section. I think the article is in much better shape. While it is more sparse, I think there is a stronger case for having a stand-alone article as long as the standard is maintained. Please let me know at the AfD discussion what you think. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't disagree with your removal of that somewhat purple prose but I wish you would have just deleted the unsourced content if you wished and then perhaps stated an edit summary along the lines of 'deleted redundant/unneeded text' but not included that particular opinion. Shearonink (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've picked this for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2013. Hope this is OK. If you want to tweak the blurb before it appears on the main page, please do. Congratulations on a lovely article! Regards, BencherliteTalk 11:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On 19 February 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Little Moreton Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Das Herrenhaus Little Moreton Hall diente 1996 als Kulisse für die Verfilmung von Daniel Defoes Roman Moll Flanders. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (quick check). |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am buffing Canis Minor and have it listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 - all input helpful as I'm feeling a little blocked on this one.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw your work on 2013 meat adulteration scandal. I think the article 2013 Russian meteor event need some sanity check when it comes to what the article says and the sources backs. I found "1000 ton" when three sources immediately specified "10 ton" despite the correct answer (from NASA) was 1000 ton. So I suspect there's other mismatches between facts and sources in the article. Electron9 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Have a pecan butter tart on me, for sticking with me when I was being less than gracious with your feedback.
Bon appetit!
Little Moreton Hall
Thank you for reading a lot and then improving even the best of articles ("remove "in fact"; this is an encyclopedia and it should be safe to assume that everything here is factual"), such as Little Moreton Hall, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Following my response on the above page, can you please reconsider your oppose? --Rschen7754 16:37, 28 March 2013 (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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sandringham House. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
}
[1] Enigmamsg 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, MarchOrDie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Your insults, comments like "You lost. Get over it.", and inexplicable attempts to exclude editors from discussions have no place here. If you cannot be civil and must resort to personal attacks, then it's off to ANI we will go. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)