Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Epicgenius. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for PINK de Thierry at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Please see my comments to Theroadislong on my talk page. All the best, Miniapolis 00:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC) |
I have reviewed you. I was looking through random pages and I stumbled on this one. Just to inform you. EthicallyYours! 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to the posting on the noticeboard. Here's my explanation of the situation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Harassment by user: Uyvsdi. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nostrand Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line) 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.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2014 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive-->
to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, look, these are 2-D, unless you have some sort of uber-hi-tech holographic monitor that no one else does. And that's my biggest problem with them. The track-and-platform level portions are laid out like they're a top-down view, but the mezzanine and other levels are placed alongside them, making it look like it is on the same level and adjacent to it, not above or below. The small sketchy labels (M, G, etc) do not sufficiently inform an unfamiliar reader about that. That could be solved if there were a key to the diagram, but there is not. As such, I don't think they do a good job if informing the reader, just throwing a confusing diagram at them.
The key issue could be solved if these diagrams were more standardized and implemented using templates, as they could at the least link to a key, like the rail line diagrams do. And that would also solve the raised-many-times-by-many-editors issue of the very large amount of raw HTML code they add to an article. The amount of code is also particularly bad for an article on a simple station where there's just a single island or two side platforms. Those just don't need diagrams at all; adding them is simply bloat.
Finally, when you add something and someone reverts, it's just bad form to re-add it without opening discussion (WP:BRD). As the person seeking to make the change, when someone reverts with an objection, it is up to you to make the case that the change is needed, not for the objector to make the case that it is not. I will it revert again, as to avoid an edit war, but I really have to wonder if these diagrams should have been given a thorough getting and discussion at an appropriate project, like WT:TRAINS or WP:NYCPT first. It certainly would have helped to address my issues. oknazevad (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Requested sir in the chhindwara page you added it is a birth place of chhindwara which is a wrong text.. this is only an spam and someone maked the wrong use . Pls undo the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.210.231 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I felt I should mention that when you reverted "aka Flop" on "Neon Lights Tour", the IP who made that was not at all making that edit in good faith. In fact, it was vandalism that you reverted. Thank you for reverting that edit, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
(The link down here was an error, I use this editing box on Wikipedia to access blocked pages on my PC (even though I had no reason to go to that link; need to log in to the site to find what I wanted to look at), but accidentally saved it)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
–
,
, and —
respectively). It produces ellipsis "…". Epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Gounder | |
Hi Epicgenius,
I want to edit the Gounder wiki page. the Gounder title mostly refers to Vettuva Gounders instead of Kongu Vellalars. Plaese do the changes needfull. Regards, K.D.Saravanan MCA Sarwaanmca (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Epicgenius,
This is regarding my first wiki edit, so please excuse any ignorance on my part. It seems yesterday the STiki flagged my edit, and it was reverted with your assessment of good faith.
The image I added to the Sudetenland page appears on the page de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahl_1938, and had been posted to the wiki commons area in 2009. Therefore, I didn’t think there was any controversy about it.
But to clarify why I thought (and still think) it’s a useful inclusion here:
I read this page some time ago and was confused by the statistics in the section I edited on the 1938 elections in Sudetenland. In my limited experience of political elections, when a party wins by such a high percentage (97.32% in this case), it almost always points to election fraud. However, given the known high level of support for the NSDAP in this area, it seemed confusing to me that election fraud would have been considered necessary by the NSDAP. So it hadn’t made sense to me. Then seeing the election ballot evaporated that confusion. To me, it's an excellent illustration of how a totalitarian regime thinks. Therefore, I felt its inclusion on this page might be useful for others as well.
Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlynn (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
which source, everybody know connection with taiji, fa jin and chan ssy jin
Dear Epicgenius,
thanks for your mail concerning my constributions for the Vienna Airport.
As you asked I should write if I think you weren´t right I´m doing that now.
The English Wikipedia Site of the Airport is like an advertisement without paying. things appear different than they are. The environmental impact assessment wasn´t done when they already started to build the new check in hall. this is still a case in the EU court and the building is already in use. Yesterday I came home from my holiday flight and heard all people around lough about those architects and comment the really bad planned terminal with extraordinary long walkways.
Now they already planned the third runway and keep telling everyone that Austria needs it although the passanger number is going down. The only ones who needs it are the investors. This is a very high price the Austrian citicens (especially those who live under the flight routes) have to pay and only a few people earn. So please change the things as they really are without being a free ad.
thank you and greetings from the now very cold Vienna,
Elisabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisako (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
hi,
Thank you for your correction. But you mistaken. There are 2 ways to get to Gili Islands, and that is the truth. About the agent and the fast boat company, they are legit. --Bali2gili (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Epicgenius. You recently tag the page plug-in electric vehicle as too long. This is a mother article that branches to many others and several of its section were already split to new articles. I am about to complete an update of full 2013 sales (last section). Would you be so kind to detail which content/sections you consider too long. This is a GA article and I would like to keep its rating as it is today, so I can take the opportunity and do some trimming or split content to a new article. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry dude, but I'm a dynamic IP address. Consider complaining to Wikipedia for their confusing commenting system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.242.77 (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The noincludes are needed because both List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological) and List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) are transcluded onto List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Now it may make sense for the noinclude sections to be hatnotes, but the noinclude needs to be there, one way or another.Naraht (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
For your comment at my RfA. Just a technicality - I think it would be my second chance, not third? I haven't lost the mop twice, only once... :) Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the oppose on my ban. I appreciate it. I'm also sorry I am posting from this username. Unfortunately the admins have preemptively blocked the IP's I was using in an effort to force me to create an account, so they could then be able to justify blocking me for socking (I really hate it how they are allowe to bait the trap like this) I had to create one for now. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko BannedEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support and kind words during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Also, another thanks for recognizing certain harassment for what it was. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Template:Extremely Dangerous has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm just beginning as an editor and you reverted two edits on the Philosophic burden of proof. I read through your vandalism page, but had trouble finding the pertinent section. Could I have more of an explanation? Was there a problem with the way it was sourced or did you not feel it was constructive? The content I added helped me immensely in understanding the topic and I imagine would help others too.
balljust (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You recently marked my edit as 'not constructive.' It was actually constructive commentary, although I suppose that commentary belongs in the sand box? Where is the sand box? The problem is, this man Saylor insists his dog be the representative for the breed. The fact of the matter is, his dog IS atypical for the breed. Acceptable yes, but atypical definitely. American Bulldogs rarely look like that and it is misleading to represent them as such. Why wouldn't the page use one of Johnson or Scott's famous foundation dogs from the 1960s? Virtually every American Bulldog is related to those founders. Please point me towards the sandbox, Sir. This pic is coming down, and it's getting replaced with something appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.73.114 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@Epicgenius Thank you, that's what I will do. That's what I would have done originally, had I known it was there. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.73.114 (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Epicgenius, Thank you for the explanation. My goal is not to create a long article, but to add just one single sentence in Wikipedia: "GEM, in equity research the abbreviation for Global Emerging Markets" GEM (disambiguation)
This would help other people who may come across the abbreviation GEM in the context of equity research. What is the bottom line here? Should we create a new article with only one sentence/reference? Or is there a better way? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarmo129 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Epicgenius. During the past week I trimmed and updated the plug-in electric vehicle article, and was able to reduce it from 292,418 Kb to 260,423 Kb (readable prose - text only - went from 83K to 72K). I am aware that it is still above the recommended size, but because the article has already being split to several others, I do not see much further room for trimming. Can you take a look to evaluate if it is OK now to remove the tag you posted, or recommend which sections can be split or further improved. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted you moving of the charts at List of New York City Subway lines and List of New York City Subway services from the article into templates. that is not what templates are for, and templates should never be created for use in only one article. To quote the Wikipedia:Template namespace page: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." There's no point in moving the charts to a template; the correct place for that information is in the article itself. Moving it to a template does not save any loading time (actually, it makes it a little longer), and it makes editing more difficult, as an editor must go to the separate template page to make an edit. The templates should be deleted promptly, and the charts should be left exactly where they are. oknazevad (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Epic, you deleted a comment I made about the Blue Jasmine because you said it wasn't constructive.
"After a whirlwind romance, Dwight (who doesn't seem to know anything about Google or Wikipedia) is about to buy an engagement ring for Jasmine when Augie happens to see them on the street and rails at her about what Hal did to him."
IMO this is a huge hole in the plot. Wouldn't you at least Google the name of someone you just met before marrying them? A little background check, especially for someone in a high profile occupation like Dwight. The movie crashed for me at this point. It just seem contrived and unreal.
Snapdog1000 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your edit on List of metro systems because modifying a source's definition is WP:Vandalism. Please do not try to change the content of a source to promote a particular POV. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
the word activist does not describe this person. He is a criminal and a terrorist. He is torturing and abusing people, this is not activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftwerkvs (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Gender studies and Gender theory are different things if you can better describe Gender theory you are welcome to do so, but redirect the subject isn't right thing to do, if you have any thoughts on the matter you are more than welcome to express yourself Gender McBender (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Epicgenius. About this request. See Talk:Atlantic Terminal#Requested move 2012 where the same move did not gain consensus. Consider opening a new move discussion if you still think this is a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some small changes to the user interface, such as moving the reference item to the top of the Insert menu, as well as some minor features and fixing bugs, especially for rich copying and pasting of references.
The biggest change was the addition of more features to the image dialog, including the ability to set alignment (left, right, center), framing options (thumbnail, frame, frameless, and none), adding alt text, and defining the size manually. There is still some work to be done here, including a quick way to set the default size.
==section headings==
in references), it now strips out the inappropriate HTML.Looking ahead: The link tool will tell you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. The warning about wikitext will hide itself after you remove the wikitext markup in that paragraph. Support for creating and editing redirects is in the pipeline. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including default and upright sizes. The developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments, some behavioral magic words like DISPLAYTITLE, and in-line language setting (dir="rtl"
).
If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I thank you for liking my edit on Pelham Bay Park. I understand the need for the templates, it decreases the overall byte size for the page, but all termini must be personalized. The only way I was able to properly fix Pelham Bay Park was that a template there was not established. I may be a rookie for all this coding in Wikipedia (I'm literally doing copy and paste for some of my edits), but in due time, I will learn. If you are interested, look at some of my layout edits on Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue, DeKalb Avenue, Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center, Jay Street-Metrotech, Broadway Junction and 145 Street. (For Broadway Junction, I altered the template for the track layout, since the coding was not directly in the page. Altering the template wasn't difficult.)
Fair warning, my former Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue edit looked wacky, but it fits its purpose. If one line has the whole track, the track direction will be the same color as the line. Like a northbound R train from 95 St to 36 St, 'northbound' will be colored yellow. Following that same principle, why not evenly split the RR direction label with the two lines that share the track? It makes sense, plus no more than two different color lines share the same track.
Thanks for picking up on the alternative name given by local residents. Unfortunately it is actually true but because it's word of mouth it's difficult to find a reference on the internet. It sometimes pops up on social media like Twitter and Facebook, but most of it is word of mouth between residents and commuters of the M6 toll. Could we add this in but mark it as needs citation, and then if I find a source on the web I'll reference it? Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.19.196 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
I can understand Scandinavia17's behavior on Son Ye-jin; xe is a new user and might not understand the whole WP:BRD cycle. But you should. Once your revert of their picture change was re-reverted, you should have taken the matter directly to the talk page. Especially in a case like this, where the issue of one image being better than another is purely subjective. You prefer the face close-up; Scandinavia prefers the wider shot. So, go talk it out. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Epic Sorry to say but the changes reverted by you in article:Nigam , were undid by me as i was damn sure that the information added by me was ture, I know that you had good intentions towards it , but believe me, my information is 100% ture as i personally confirmed with people of this cast. So please don't revert it again . Sincere Regards Older Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Older historian (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Saw that you got to adding layout diagrams to the PVL stations. I'm just wondering if it makes more sense to include only one line with it saying "for all trains" or such, as it would be a better visual representation of the single track/single platform nature of these stations. As it stands, though the numbers are there, at first glance they appear to show two tracks. Secondly, including the next stations in each is redundant to the s-line templates already below the Infobox, and not needed. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1 | ■ Pascack Valley Line | ← for Spring Valley → for Hoboken → |
Hi EG, I saw the removal of the list here and I don't want to change it back but I was interested to find out your reasoning behind it. Was it because you felt that, in general, any article about a school should not have a list of notable alumni, or perhaps, was it because it was not referenced, or did you have another reason? If you have a moment to let me know, I'd be grateful. Kind regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Transportation in New York City. Pburka (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Your STiki based reversion of IP:87.221.91.33's edit to the above was a mistake. I followed the ISBN trail to where the author clearly has no final "b". I have reverted your edit. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Epicgenius,
You removed the addition to the Book of Revelation Modern Theories. If you Google Matthew Revelation you will find the supporting evidence for this theory. It was not included with the addition as a reference, still the addition is valid. Please reconsider.
Respectfully, Steve Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.132.209 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi EG, Thx, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.132.209 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I altered the article because the word "Caucasian" as a synonym for White/West Eurasian is inherently confusing. There are, after all, actual Caucasians (people from the Caucasus) in the world. Best Wishes. 50.176.161.22 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
How can a version of an article now be flagged if it's been online for months? It was character for character the same as it was. I just now went even further back. Will this stay? ShvWebmaster (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for updating the WTC PATH Station layout to reflect the newly opened Platform A. I'm not sure how to properly edit that table, but I wanted to share what I do know about the new station so far.
The new HOB track in operation is now Track 1 on Platform A. It is the northern most track against the slurry wall. Platform A is an island platform. Track 2 (formerly Track 1) is currently walled off and not in service.
I believe that the closed and under construction portions of the station should be moved to fall under the Transportation Hub and no longer under the Temporary Station label. This would involve renaming Track 2 to 3 and Track 3 to 4 (with island Platform B in between).
Also what was Track 3 is no longer in service (all HOB service has been moved to the new Track 1). From what I can tell, the Port Authority has already begun work to erect a construction wall between the current Tracks 3 and 4, to allow them to build Platform B. This will leave the existing Tracks 4 and 5 to be isolated in the temporary station and will be the last platform (Platform C) to be reconstructed.
There is also a Track 6 which is a support track and will never run revenue service. I don't believe this track will have a publicly accessible platform. Drumz0rz (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vance Miller. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DES (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Haven Line 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) 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South Brooklyn may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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) 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 36th Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) 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) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Underground anagram map 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) 16:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
So I had a thought regarding the listing of next station and terminal station/ultimate destinations on the station layout diagrams. I think they should be flipped, with the next station being listed in larger text first, with the ultimate terminal in small print and parenthesis afterwards. It just seems to me that the next station is more relevant and immediate, so it should get the larger print if both are to be listed. Of course, that also seems pretty duplicative of the s-line succession boxes, so I don't particularly think the next station is needed at all, but if it is to be included, it should be listed first. I've tried my hand at what I mean at Terminals 2/3 (AirTrain JFK station). Let me know what you think. oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.