User talk:Tga.D
Help me![edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I'm trying to cite a PDF version of a print document. When citing the page number, do I cite the page of the PDF, or the printed page number? For reference, the document is http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf and I'm trying to cite page 7 of the PDF, which is page 3 of the document. JD (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Use the printed page number. If this document had Roman numerals as the numbers before the standard Arabic numbers started being used, they would be cited if you wanted to mention something in a forward or whatnot. This is also because if the user needs to refer back to the table of contents of the document, this ensures consistency between the citation and the table of contents. At least that's my interpretation of the page numbers rule in the Manual of Style. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 03:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Updated world population growth estimates[edit]
I recently updated population growth estimates in Projections of population growth, based on the 2015 report of the UN Population Division. As you created the graph File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg based on data from the 2010 report, could you kindly create an updated version of the graph in order to match the text and fresh projections? They have considerably narrowed their estimates, giving a range of 9.5 to 13.2 billion people in 2100 with 95% confidence; the median value has increased to 11.2 billion and still growing in 2100. Many thanks in advance for your help! — JFG talk 04:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I should have an updated version up within the next hour or two. Tga (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Tor[edit]
You shouldn't confuse terseness with antagonism. VQuakr (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Haha I won't, just try to be a bit more polite in the future and I'm sure it'll be fine. Tga (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful Kind Edits[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Thank you from your kind edits at Tor (anonymity network) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Title case for isis agora lovecruft[edit]
If you have not been editing for so long, I would slap a {{uw-biog1}} warning on you. Shame on you for trying to convert Isis Agora Lovecruft to isis agora lovecruft [sic] without a citation. Provide a citation & then we can take your edit seriously. Peaceray (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you seem to be confused. I wasn't the one who added the correction to lowercase, I was reverting back to Jelovirt (talk · contribs)'s edit. Had I noticed isis's name in the article earlier, I would have fixed it myself. The edit in question did provide a source in the edit message (namely: https://twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/1258515495851921408). We don't typically provide citations for name spellings in articles, but can do so in this case, since there seems to be such (frankly, bizarre) confusion. In any case, I can assure you, both online and in person, they consistently insist the correct spelling of their name is in all lowercase (they also insist on the correct pronouns, which are they/them, for future reference). --Tga (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- This still requires a citation in the article. A citation the summary does not suffice. Restoring unverified attestations without a citation still counts as being unverified. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia does not typically provide citations for how people's names are spelled when it is unrelated to the content of the article itself. Such matters are generally resolved in discussions, either in talk pages or edit summaries. I'm trying to be cordial here, but the fact is you were unambiguously (yet confidently and inconsiderately) incorrect on a matter that should have been a non-issue. If you had baseline respect for them, you would have looked into the matter yourself and come up with a solution that satisfied both your and their wishes, but you clearly didn't care enough to do that (as evidenced by your misgendering). I'm not going to discuss this any further, just try to be better in the future. --Tga (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tga.D, I believe that WP:BLPREMOVE applies here. Simply changing the spelling or case of someone's name or gender without some sort of citation can lead to inaccuracies. I believe that the possibility of inaccuracy can do harm. What is to stop a vandal from changing these items willy-nilly?
- My baseline respect for people is to insure that a statement has verification. The onus is on the editor who makes the change or reinserts unverified material. This is not my opinion, but WP policy. Peaceray (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia does not typically provide citations for how people's names are spelled when it is unrelated to the content of the article itself. Such matters are generally resolved in discussions, either in talk pages or edit summaries. I'm trying to be cordial here, but the fact is you were unambiguously (yet confidently and inconsiderately) incorrect on a matter that should have been a non-issue. If you had baseline respect for them, you would have looked into the matter yourself and come up with a solution that satisfied both your and their wishes, but you clearly didn't care enough to do that (as evidenced by your misgendering). I'm not going to discuss this any further, just try to be better in the future. --Tga (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- This still requires a citation in the article. A citation the summary does not suffice. Restoring unverified attestations without a citation still counts as being unverified. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)