User talk:Compassionate727/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine

Hi,

I don't think neutrality is breached when you classify Crimea as a occupied area by Russia. It is classified as such by the United Nations and has passed through the general assembly. The term "disputed" gives undue legitimacy to illegal actions and legality has no measure of opinion. I was wondering if you could clarify your insistence on using "disputed" rather than "occupied"?Lukakach (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't have a particular opinion on the subject. However, I can assure you that there has been a discussion about this before at Talk:Ukraine. You'll have better success getting a convincing answer by searching through the archives, and if you're still not convinced, you should raise it there. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Shais Taub

Hi there, I'm not sure why you suspect my edits are libelous as I've provided several valid sources. "Shais Taub" is actually an alias for Seth Thompson of Pittsburgh, PA - you can verify this through a quick internet search. His parents are in fact Guy W. and Rhea S. Thompson of Chicago and they both obtained doctorate degrees from Heed University, a known diploma mill now based in Milwaukee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5B5:5190:A078:D4DB:47F3:ADAE (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The case can be made that you are undermining his authority by adding that info, but I'll accept it for now. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 23:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Compassionate727, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 talk 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 11:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No Fault Found

Could I get something constructive instead of "this is very poorly written" and a wipe. No Fault Found is a distinct and unique topic that should not just redirect to Failure Analysis. JPelham (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the main problem was the writing itself. The section "The NFF Problem" had very poor grammar, and the image making the last line behave weirdly didn't help. Also, it's very short, and I'm not sure how you can expand it. No fault found is a possible result of a failure analysis, right? Are you sure you shouldn't just create a section there? -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The first section was actually a quote and I've now rewritten it to make it make more sense. I've put the article in my sandbox User:JPelham/sandbox and improved it. The funny thing is No Fault Found has never been a possible result of failure analysis. It is a maintenance investigation outcome where no failure is identified. Failure analysis only comes after a failure has been found and the cause is in question. I hope I have gone some way to alleviating your concerns and that you no agree this should be de merged.JPelham (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Now moved from sandbox to Draft space No Fault Found JPelham (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's still somewhat difficult to tell exactly what this topic is. Could you use less technical terms? -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
If you could let me know which terms are causing the trouble I can rewrite it.JPelham (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on what an unscheduled event is? -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 15:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is an updated definition. No Fault Found (NFF) is a term used in the field of Maintenance where a unit is removed from service following a complaint of a perceived fault by operators or an alarm from its BIT(Built in Test) equipment. The unit is then checked but no anomaly is detected by the maintainer. Consequently the unit is returned to service with no repair performed. If there is an underlying fault that has not been detected the unit may be returned for repair several times with no fault identified. Is this clearer? JPelham (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Compassionate727 could you explain why you have redirected the newly accepted NFF article? The article you have redirected to contains no peer reviewed research. The NFF article you removed did and was intended to become a much more expansive article. As a researcher the proper name for this phenomenon with the widest acceptance is NFF and has become accepted across the electronics, automotive, and aerospace sectors.JPelham (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Because I had assumed you were done since you had submitted it, and there's more content at the target I redirected to than there was there. If you're not done, then you can revert it, but they cover the same topic, so they need to be merged or something. And I would honestly support keeping the title at No trouble found. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Compassionate727Perhaps you could find some peer reviewed articles using No trouble found then if that is your view. JPelham (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Why? You already have. It's simply a different way of describing the thing you are talking about. It doesn't really matter where the title is. I support keeping it an No Trouble Found because the article is already there, and it's longer there. It's more about preserving page history than anything. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Because all the peer reviewed articles I have found use No Fault Found as the name of the phenomenon and list phrases such as No trouble found as alternative descriptors used in different ways in different industries. Page history must give way to scholarly rigour, accepted nomenclature, and grammatical correctness.JPelham (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Would moving No Trouble Found to No fault found be an adequate way to handle it, since they are the same thing? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Compassionate727 I have no objection to that. JPelham (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Waldheim–Rochlitz railway

Hi, I believe you put the "more footnotes" tag on Waldheim–Rochlitz railway back in September 2015. I've changed a few things, is it better now? --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I see several paragraphs have a sentence or clause at the end of them that doesn't have a citation with them. Are these cited by citations earlier in the paragraph? If so, I would move these to the end of the paragraph to indicate the entire paragraph is referenced to it. Otherwise, I would find more references, or possibly just remove the information, depending on how important it is. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Copy Editing on Jankovský of Vlašim

Hello !

Saw your post for Copy Editing on Jankovský of Vlašim. I did my best but will take another look at it and see were it could be improved. I am open to any sugegestion you may have to make it better. Thanks ! --Vlasime (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned it up myself. However, could you clarify the references section? It's hard to read. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again !Vlasime (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements to Jankovský z Vlašimi.

Regarding reference "brother or cousin was perhaps Jan z Kamenice, the father of Cardinal Jan Očko z Vlašime" there is no one document that states either bother or cousin but of the same family, the House of Vlasim. That is why I used the word "perhaps" Several documents show direct relationship and also books: Zrcadlo slavného Markrabí Moravského by Bartosz Paprocki published in 1593 and Tajemstvi Jankovskych z Vlasimi a na Bitove- 2008.

I have reseached the family for 20 plus yaers. I will e-mail you some notes.

Would simply stating he's a relative be the best way of putting it? -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrasing warning at the Marc-Christian Riebe article

Hi Compassionate727, you added {{close paraphrasing}} tag to the article Marc-Christian Riebe. This article was edited and rewrited many times (look at the history), it can't be paraphrased. Buhram (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

See [1]. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jankovský of Vlašim
added links pointing to Tyrol, Slatina, Jankov and Plavec

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Icelake

The article is a stub and will expand over time. There is a wikilink to Cannonlake. The article is a stand alone as it is a separate CPU. Please stop reverting it. IQ125 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

Hi. For the past few weeks, I have tried to edit this article so that the article is up-to-date. But some anonymous users keeps reverting my edits with reasons that does not make sense. I have also tried to tak with these anonymous user about this issue in their talk page, but they would not respond. I would like to ask for your help to solve this issue in the article. If you would like to help, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

About the Jamahiriya

I noticed the article History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi has part of the content similar to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Can you help me to have a look at it, thanks! --Hongqilim (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure about it either. Honestly, I don't think that section needs to be that long, now that the article exists. I'll ask about it on the talk page of that article. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 15:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Letter Rogatory/ Letters Rogatory

I noticed you deleted the Letters Rogatory page and redirected it to the Letter Rogatory Page. The reason I created the "Letters Rogatory Page" is because it is the correct spelling/usage. Like "Letters Patent", not "Letter Patent" Please also use the talk page where the issue is explained and discuss there rather than just reverting or undoingSuastiastu (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't just cut-and-paste move pages. I'll tag the redirect for speedy deletion under G6, and then an admin can move the page there. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ayal

I've taken this to AfD. I am not sure this editor and Wikipedia are a good fit, but guidance might help. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! –Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thakor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saurastra. 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) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No fault found

I removed the speedy deletion tag from this page as it appears to contain different useful information that should be merged with the other article, not simply deleted. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just a note to let you know that I constantly see you doing wise and helpful things all over teh wiki. Here is a kitten in appreciation for your contributions. Glad to have you aboard.

— Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding IP Address 14.139.38.11

Hey! I see that you have made an edit on talk page of User talk: 14.139.38.11 that the ip address is registered to Krishna Kant Pramod Kumar. I have a question: How do you know that the ip is registered to the aforementioned person? Thanks.
- Iamvaibhavkumar (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

At the bottom of an IP's talk page, there's a box with a bunch of links in it. See the two geolocation ones? You can use those to look up the approximate location of an IP address. When I did on this particular address, the it indicated that the address was located quite close to that of the aforementioned business, so I tagged it as such. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on User talk:14.139.38.11

Hey! You have reverted my edit on User talk:14.139.38.11. The reason given was "You got it backwards. India Institute is providing the Internet, not receiving it". I am very sorry for being too naive here, but firstly, I didn't get all this providing-receiving thing. Secondly, as we have talked before, you told me to go at the bottom of that talk page and look for the geolocation links. I did that and I don't find any description giving me the name "Krishna Kant Pramod Kumar". Please explain. Iamvaibhavkumar (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I used to have it backwards too. I once tagged several IPs as belonging to the Internet something or other for the Caribbean and Central America, or something like that, before realizing that not that many IPs should belong to them. The only way to tell if the IP belongs to anyone specific is by zooming in. I know you can do that if you use the geolocate labelled as the alternate. You might need to look up the area yourself on a maps service if you're using the first, if I recall correctly. If you do so for 14.139.38.11, a marker comes up showing that the building the IP has been traced to belongs to a business known as the Krishna Kant Pramod Kumar. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Aha, now I see that from where you are getting that "Krishna Kant Pramod Kumar". And the moment I saw that, I know that you are doing it wrong. I mean no offense but bear with me on this:
1. No, I believe "zooming in" is NOT the right way. Why? Because geolocate (labelled as alternate) is using google maps. You will see a copyright Google in the bottom right corner of the map. There is something called Google Map Maker, using which anybody can mark their home/business/shop or anything on the google maps. So if I mark my shop even more closer to the location you're zooming in, that doesn't mean that now I have taken control over the concerned ip address. In addition to that, think about this: if "zooming-in" is the right way, then why don't the result shows it already zoomed-in in the first place? Why do we have to zoom-in? The reason it does not shows already zoomed-in because it is showing an approximate location which not exactly pin point true. In our case, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur is located in Kanpur city and the before-zooming-in result shows the city.
2. Google maps is a service that is used to locate roads, places and other address but NOT internet IPs, domains etc. Internet IPs are not allocated on the basis of location. Had that been the case then you would have guessed a number of IPs for a single wireless modem user. If you look at the bottom of that talk page, you'll also see RIRs. This is the organization that manages all IP allocation and it is completely independent of google. There are other links at the bottom of that talk page like WHOIS, rDNS and RIRs:Asia-Pacific. If you click on those links, you'll see that on whose name the IP is registered.
3. When you claim that the registered IP owner is a 'provider' and not a 'receiver', I doubt how it is possible to know about this. I understand that by saying 'provider' you mean the Internet service provider which is providing access to the internet to one of its customers and the customer is here referred to as 'receiver'. The way it works is that first 'receiver' request the 'provider' to give it some webpage. Then, the 'provider' fetches that webpage from the domain of that webpage and handovers that data to the 'receiver'. If you use Geolocate to trace the user, you'll finally reach the door of 'provider'. Now the 'provider' could be a private/government/non-profit organization and there is no reason it will give the Geolocate the access to its receiver. So again zooming-in is not the right thing.
4. I have a number of things to say regarding your statement: "'I once tagged several IPs as belonging to the Internet something or other for the Caribbean and Central America, or something like that, before realizing that not that many IPs should belong to them.'"
(a) Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur is one of the premiere institutes in India and it can obtain multiple number of IPs. If you search the concerned ip address 14.139.38.11 on Regional Internet Registry for Asia-Pacific Region on this site: APNIC Whois Search, you will see that all IP Addresses from 14.139.38.0 to 14.139.38.255 belong to NKN-IIT-KANPUR. Here, NKN stands for National Knowledge Network of India which is a multi-gigabit network connecting many educational institutes in India including IIT Kanpur.
(b) When you claim 'before realizing that not that many IPs should belong to them', please do not claim something without any references. I am not saying this in any kind of offensive way (I know that I am a newbie on Wikipedia whereas you are a far more experienced user) but you should have done some research before or you should have taken help of some admin who is into these technical things.
(c) ' I once tagged several IPs as belonging to the Internet something or other for the Caribbean and Central America'. Now I see your logic, I think that you've had the same approach there as well and you did the same mistake. Please look back those IPs and check them. Or else post those IPs on my talk page and I'll sort that out.
Now if we are good, then please revert that edit. Or else we can bring someone else in this discussion. In my opinion, User:PrimeHunter is someone who could solve this issue very quickly.
Thanks. Iamvaibhavkumar (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Let's get your opinion on this.
I don't personally know much about the intricacies of the Internet, but I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to hide the location of an IP, since the packets of information have to be sent, and they use IPs to determine where to send them. Someone always knows your IP address. Even if you use a proxy server to hide it from the public, they know what your real IP is. As far as why ISPs would be willing to reveal that information, I can't tell you, but there's no reason to question it since we know they do.
Google Maps itself is not designed to show where IPs are, as it isn't designed to search for them. However, geolocation services can do that. Once they have determined the location, they pull that location up on a map service, which can be Google's, Yahoo's, Bing's, or anyone else's. Once they have pulled up a location, you determine who its affiliated with by zooming all the way in to see precisely where the geolocation indicated the IP was. Usually, it is simply a cell-tower signal that someone is using to browse the Internet on their phone. In this case, you don't tag is as belonging to anyone. In the case of the Krishna Kant Pramod Kumar, it located it is near the IP, and so I tagged it as such. Your point about adding a business closer is valid, but this doesn't need to be accurate. It's mainly used by admins to determine the reason for long-term patterns of abuse from IPs, when considering how long to make blocks for. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Aromatization

Aromatization must not be redirected to aromatic hydrocarbon. Many aromatization reactions make heterocycles.--CxHy (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Numbered list at WP talk page mover

Hi, I added "#" in front of your striked comment so that other folks can vote under you with "#" and the numbered list doesn't start back at 1. Did you really mean to change "#" to ":"? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did technically mean to, but I didn't realize that you had intentionally did or that that was why. You can re-add it. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay no problem! I definitely don't mean to step on your toes there. :) Cheers, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You're fine. Happy editing. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 3 games without trophy support

Please discontinue deleting this article on your own. Submit it to Articles for deletion if you wish. -JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Is there a reason that you are undoing the page "Marinette Catholic Central High School (Wisconsin)"? It is for a school project, if I am violating any rules please let me know so I can correct them instead of just undoing and leaving me in the dark. If you are going to say it violates rule "G11" that is false, then maybe you should take down pages such as "Xavier High School" or "Notre Dame Academy". Please just let me know what is going on. Thanks, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.205.87 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I clicked the wrong link when I made the revert, had meant to include an edit summary. The reason I (and the others) have been reverting is that the article for your school already exists, at a different title (St. Thomas Aquinas Academy (Marinette, Wisconsin)). Creating an article at the title you are attempting to is undesirable, because you end up with two different articles on the same topic. For more information, you can read Wikipedia:Content forking#Redundant content forks. You can certainly improve the article, though it should be done at St. Thomas Aquinas Academy (Marinette, Wisconsin), to keep all the information on the subject together.
On a separate note, just from looking at the content it seems you intend to add, I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and maybe Wikipedia:Original research, which are two of our policies related to sourcing. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Developing countries

Good evening Thank you for your pleasant message. I apologize beforehand for my level of English. But my experience as researcher taught me that it is from the early childhood, from the day-nursery that begins the process of the education, a kind of "programming". Cordialement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondermarvel (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, your own experience is also considered original research. If you can find a published source which says that (which I believe you should be able to, from what I've myself heard on the topic), you can re-add it. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agbolade Omowole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order. 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) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Hi. I noticed your comment at ANI about SwisterTwister's retirement tag. While I appreciate this might look like someone trying to be "manipulative", bear in mind that some people just don't deal well with criticism of their work, and would rather not be on Wikipedia than be criticised for what they're doing, regardless of whether that criticism is constructive or well-founded. Indeed, SwisterTwister took a long break the last time their work was criticised, clearly not through trying to be manipulative. Just a thought. Sam Walton (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I wondered about that the first time time we had this ANI, which is why didn't say anything about it there. But frankly, I've just run out faith. I honestly feel that if being criticized caused that much stress, than they should/would stop doing what's been getting them in trouble. They have been criticized about this for a very long time, to be sure, but they instead chose to completely ignore those comments and play it off like they were being attacked. If this legitimately is SwisterTwister's normal mindset, then they are just so hostile that I don't think they are useful to the effort. I mean, I don't really know. It would help to know them irl to be able to accurately tell, but I don't. I'm just going off of my own speculations on the matter, which will naturally follow by own somewhat cynical bent. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Lying Game (book series)

I asking you please self-revert on The Lying Game (book series). I added that article's first sourcing, and chose both author format and date format deliberately. MOS:DATERET says "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." – in this case, the first major contributor of refs is me. MOS:DATEUNIFY is also clear that ref accessdate can use ISO date formats even if other date formats are in 'mdy dates' format (note also that Wikipedia doesn't have a "house" refs style format). Changing date formats on WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis is disrespectful to the authors who first chose whatever date format they chose. So I'm asking you to self-revert. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I was already aware of MOS:DATERET. Thanks for alerting me to MOS:DATEUNIFY, which provides additional information on that which I wasn't aware of. Thanks. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We Happy Few (Supernatural)

I didn't make any mistakes, the remark from Crowley was intended that way (it was obvious reference to the Donald Trump slogan), it was humorous. Since when does Wikipedia, or Wikipedians have issues with humor?. P.S. There's also this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again#In_popular_culture --ReordCræft (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Actually providing a wikilink makes it look like you are slamming Trump. Otherwise I'd say it's fine, but the wikilink should stay out. Trump's campaign slogan isn't exactly related to the episode (the purpose of wikilinks being to provide easy access to related articles). –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, most people will consider humor (inserted by the editors, not originating from the topic itself, of course) to be not appropriate in an encyclopedia. People come here for information, not entertainment. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've noticed but Supernatural is entertainment, it's a TV show after all. All in all, you're deliberately ignoring screenwriters' intent by removing the link to the slogan. --ReordCræft (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's why I clarified my statement. Of course Supernatural is entertainment. Any humor inherent with the topic is of course acceptable. But most people will find issue with editors going out of their way to add humor to an article, as this detracts from the encyclopedic tone. Also, I still think the wikilink looks like you're slamming Trump, by setting someone up with this silly viewpoint (making hell great again) and then implicitly encouraging the reader to read about Trump's campaign. And it's not like anybody will need the link to get the reference. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

removing my discussion

You have no right to remove the topic being discussed. People are going to keep reverting it, and that's inappropriate.

It seems, given that you are American, and that these families are essentially responsible for the health of your country, you are going to revert anything that may have truth in it.

Do you honestly believe that the Rockefeller Rothschild relationship is new? Do you feel that the news article provided by FT.com was reporting a relationship that was previously non-existent? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Next: To suggest that Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world are not relevant to the topic being discussed (familial alliances), you are mistaken.

User:Johnbod wanted to make the argument that the Rockefeller Rothschild relationship is one among many, which is a half-truth. It may be one among many (like the Rothschild's relationship with the Arabs), however it is the most prominent.

Evelyn de Rothschild is the Queen's financial advisor, for Goodness' sake. Don't you understand that the Crown owns all the property within the Commonwealth Realms, and thus the sale of natural energy reserves falls under this family's jurisdiction?

The Rockefellers are a BIG beneficiary of this relationship. Have you ever wondered why the energy being extracted is not refined, but is instead piped down halfway across the continent to Texas? Many excuses will be given, all of which are false.

My claims are not incorrect or ridiculous, but true. This relationship has existed for quite some time, and their unwelcome influence is palpable throughout the region where this energy comes from.

Maybe you need to be a bit more understanding of how things operate in other countries, because your comments are baseless denigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.7.22 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't denying any of it. My grievance is that your rhetoric will cause him to get defensive, and then you two will be too busy insulting each other for anything useful to be accomplished. The points are all worth raising, and I suggest you do. However, accusing him of being part of a conspiracy working for the Rothschilds is unfounded and won't accomplish anything. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Reproductive rights in the United States

Thank you for your feedback on Draft:Reproductive rights in the United States. I will consider either making it into an article or simply a category. Waters.Justin (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambridge_University_Swimming_and_Water_Polo_Club_(CUSWPC)&action=edit&redlink=1

Is it possible to retrieve the recently deleted article so that I can use it in the draft format? Swimmingguy2016 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can ask the deleting admin (RHaworth), but I can't guarantee he'll be willing to do it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting edits

I have created many pages on renumbered highways.. I don't understand why you reverted the highways. Are you trying to give people wrong information or mislead people as "the highways haven't renumbered" If I have done something improper, you kindly fix those problems instead of reverting the facts Kichanz (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kichanz: Yes, of course. The issue is that you were moving the pages using Cut and paste moves, which aren't allowed because they split the page history, and the history is legally required for attribution. If you want to move a page and can't because of the page history (note that you can use the move tool to move pages over redirects that don't have any history), you should use either WP:RM, or stick a {{db-move}} template onto the redirect in question and fill out the necessary parameters. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's consider an example, you reverted my edit on National Highway 35 (India). What I did here is I removed the redirect and added information about the new National Highway 35, I haven't copied anything from any page. But you reverted the edit. This is the case for most of the pages you reverted. Kichanz (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kichanz: Exactly, but you didn't do it properly. The correct way to move it is with a tool. In the top right corner, next to the "View history" tab, there's a "Page" tab. Hover over the Page tab, and you'll get a drop down menu. One of the items in it is "Move page". Click on that, and it'll take you to Special:MovePage. Use that to properly move pages.
However, in this instance, if you try to move National Highway 112 (India) to National Highway 35 (India), you'll get an error. This is because the redirect has previous revisions, and you can't move pages over pages that have history. An admin will need to delete the redirect first, and you can request this by putting {{db-move}} at the top of National Highway 35 (India), specifying the page that needs to be moved there (National Highway 112 (India)) and the reason why (India's highways have been renamed). Then an admin will come along shortly, delete the redirect and move the page.
Hope that clarifies things. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I understood the problem you said. Since most of the highways in India are renumbered combining two or more old highways. In this case what can I do? How can I move or request to move an article to new name. Another case is about articles like National Highway 60 (India), here there's no existing article page to be moved to this page. I will have to create new article ( have already done but reverted). This is the case, DO yu have any suggestions to give?

Oh, I see. That one was my mistake. I assumed that had also been a cut and paste move. If National Highway 60 doesn't have a corresponding old number highway, then just re-add it. I have no idea about how the renaming system was done. On a side note, is National Highway 25 (India) the same story, or does that have another page that needs to be moved over it? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kichanz: Wait, are many of these highways completely new segments of road, as opposed to having simply been renamed? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

warning

Hi User:Compassionate727,

First, I want to thank you for your patience throughout these past few arduous days.

Secondly, I am hoping you send that warning to Johnbod as well, because I am not a "crank" or "conspiracy theorist".

I find such disparaging terms to be the equal of "Rothschild sycophant" or "Rothschild dependent" (or similar terms), but your opinion may differ.

Nonetheless I think I've been very civil throughout this process, and my recent frustration is mostly caused by others refusal of facts.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and will try my best to continually demonstrate my "can't look away" ( ;;))) ) wikipedia conduct :) 31.208.7.22 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Adieu"

Sorry if I've been a little grumpy - but "adieu" has been for many, many years used as a "normal" English word, with its own "English" pronunciation. Although it is of patently French origin and is (as a noun) sometimes spelled with its French plural "adieux" - it does not fall under the definition of French words and phrases in that article. Some "allegedly French" words used in English are not, and have never been "good" French. If you can think of a neater way of saying this - by all means. Otherwise - the article does have a talk page where we can thrash out this kind of thing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, alright. I don't know much about the article or that kind of thing, so if it's not supposed to be in the list, then I'm fine. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries, sorry again for that rather rude edit summary of mine - never any excuse for that sort of thing. :) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberalism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liberalism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberalism

The article Liberalism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Liberalism for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter.

June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories on new categories

Hello. Just a small request - when you create new categories such as Category:Women artists articles needing infoboxes, please can you put categories on them? Otherwise noone can find them and so it doesn't really help. And it's one less thing for people like me to do, who put categories on uncat cats.... Le Deluge (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberalism

The article Liberalism you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Liberalism for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Compassionate727/Archive_8&oldid=998742378"