Hey there! I'm making a centralised "library" if you will of books that Wikipedians own; the idea is to give a single place of reference where users can go to find other users who might have texts on a subject they are writing about, rather than what we have at the moment (various users having indexesbooks they own scattered around in places). Would you have any problem with me including your texts given here in the library? Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
|The Epic Barnstar|
|I just wanted to let you know that your work on the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria article has not gone unnoticed. In appreciation for that work, I hereby award you the Epic Barnstar, which is awarded to an editor who makes particularly fine contributions related to history and events. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)|
The section on non-english sources is about sources (that is outside works used to support material) that are not in English. All references (descriptions of the source on Wikipedia) should be in English. See the same section at WP:V. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- In general, please stop changing the term "source" to "reference" in this guideline. You are making the page more confusing. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Christopher Parham thanks for your comments. I'm surprised that you say I'm making this help article more confusing because my aim is quite the opposite. In the article, as was, there was an inconsistent use of the words 'references', 'referencing', 'citation', 'source' and 'sourcing' which made it more difficult to follow than necessary (I found it so when trying to gen up on citations and references).
- In the specific case of the 'Non-English sources' title which you reverted to from 'Non English references': this is another case of confusion because it is not the Non English 'sources' that is the issue it is the 'Non English references'. It's the references that the Wiki pages list under the specific level 2 title of 'References'. Suggest that the title in the help page be put back to 'Non English references'.
- I do not mean to criticise the article and, in spite of the above, I did find it to be very helpful and generally easy to use- obviously the result of much good work.
- CPES (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- On this page, a "source" is an outside work that can act as reliable backing for info on Wiki. Although the term "reference" is somewhat ambiguous, it is generally used to mean anything connecting sources with article content; "referencing" is the process of indicating what content is supported by which sources. A "citation" is the specific notation connecting a particular fact with a particular source work. So we don't cite references, we cite sources (outside works). "Reference" and "citation" are often interchangeable but generally "reference" and "source" mean different things in this guideline. So the issue is not non-English references, which wouldn't belong on this Wikipedia, but non-English sources - instances where outside works in say, French, are used to support content here. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- CPES (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's more or less how it is now. But, my feeling is that 'References', 'Sources', 'Citations' or whatever term is used for the area of which we speak could be rationalised and simplified which would make it easier for new editors (and possibly experinced ones). Of course, as you imply, it is a Wiki wide issue which, if done at all, needs to be done from the top down rather than the other way around. (by the way there are some thoughts about 'Citations' at User:CPES/Wikipedia comments) CPES (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
These two edits: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It's no good having a shortcut which is intended to link to a particular section which actually takes you to the top of the document; users who are directed to check this won't know what I'm on about. Please rectify. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC), have broken shortcut
- Apologies for messing up your link Redrose64 it was unintentional. The link is fixed now CPES (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Calendar years vs model years
Thank you for you edit at Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. However, in most countries the phrase "2014 Prado" means the Prado that was introduced during the 2014 calendar year while in the US it means the Prado that was introduced in the 2013 calendar year (typically August 2013 to August 2014). It's best to say either "...in 2014 the Prado ..." or "... the 2014 model year Prado ..." or "... in 2013 (for the 2014 model year) the Prado ...". 23:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out Sepho
Rising Damp; My Mistake
I am sorry I made a mistake, actually two mistakes, on Rising Damp. It appears to me in retrospect that I thought content had been removed but it had been moved. I also seem to have misinterpreted the improvements you have been making. The revert was an "automated" edit but it should have left a brief summary. In any event, it was a mistake and I am glad you caught it. I apologize for the mistake and inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- No probs my friend. It's a big person who apologises. I make mistakes all the time- for example in this case I forgot to log in. CPES (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Re this edit, did you mean to use the spelling Bo Diddly, with no e? I've never seen his name spelled that way. If not, I don't think the name should be listed as an alias, given that the article itself is given that name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will do some copyediting at some point, but will wait till you take a break to avoid edit conflicts. Nothing major, I think, but some details - for instance, Jo Ann Campbell was pioneering in being a female rockabilly singer, not in simply being a rockabilly singer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Although the manual of style allows the use of the Oxford comma in an article, it does require that the usage is consistent throughout the article. Adding such a comma to an article that did not have any (Royer oscillator) can be seen as disruptive (not to mention WP:LAME). Also you added one to Worcester despite there being over 250 examples of non usage. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not send me nonsense messages like this. None of what you say makes sense. As for adding an Oxford comma being disruptive- don't be so ridiculous. Reverting and commenting about adding an Oxford comma is disruptive by the same token. Besides which Wiki rules say that the last edit should stand if it makes sense.
- As for quoting edit wars that does not make sense either- what edit wars are you talking about? I have improved the English. sense, grammar, punctuation, etc on endless articles on Wikipedia which you obviously haven't bothered to chec. You are both impertinent and inaccurate and arn't even a registered member of Wikipedia so that I could take this matter further, if I was so inclined. Who are you? CPES (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Where did I mention 'edit wars'? Something you made up? Just like you made up, "Wiki rules say that the last edit should stand if it makes sense". Nothing of what I posted was nonsense unlike much of your reply.
- The Wiki policy on the Oxford comma (which you obviously didn't bother to read) states, "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent" (my emphasis). Making articles non consistent is disruptive. It is even more disruptive as you are not following your claimed policy above given that you are not allowing a previous edit to stand. So I am not inaccurate. As for your other remark, that could be grounds for taking further (see WP:CIVIL).
- As for my being an unregistered editor, what makes you think that would be grounds for 'taking the matter further'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Unregistered editors are as entitled to edit and comment on other users edits in exactly the same way as registered users - whether you like it or not. If you wish to start a campaign against unregistered editors, you might like to bear in mind that the last registered user's attempt, that I witnessed, ended in an editing restriction on interacting with unregistered editors (there was strong support for an indefinite block but he narrowly got away with it). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Polymer niobium capacitors
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message