User talk:Afterwriting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Other Wikipedia pages can't be used for references?[edit]

I just had a link to a Wikipedia page in an article deleted because "Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used for references" suggesting all Wikipedia pages are incorrect and all unaccountable to anyone outside Wikipedia internet pages are accurate - that is not my experience. Where does it say in Wikipedia guidelines that it is forbiden to use Wikipedia articles as references or links? As well in the context of the article concerned it was not a reference as in backing a statement of fact it was just extra information if the reader was interested in following it up such as can be found on most websites. Does this mean I have to quote references given in a particular Wikipedia article instead which in many cases means the reader will only find the detail of the extra information by buying or taking the reference book out via a library hardly digital age behaviour. tobalwin (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

tobalwin, see WP:CIRCULAR --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
NeilN has already provided the WP information about this matter at WP:CIRCULAR. There is, of course, no problem with linking to another relevant WP article but this needs to be done in the text instead of using references tags and putting the link in the reference section. Afterwriting (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain what needs to be done. Unfortunately in this particular case even though a Wikipedia article exists for the Play It Again record label [the only current web information on it i've found] because the Wikipedia description is Play it Again [record label] the brackets around [record label] interfere with the hyperlink brackets and it doesn't work and if I just hyperlink Play It Again record label without the brackets it comes up "no article exists". Is there any way around this say changing the title of the Wilkipedia "Play It Again [record label]" article to remove the brackets which may be helpful for people browser searching for it as well? tobalwin (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just added the link for the Play It Again article. When an article name has words within a rounded bracket, such as "Play It Again" (record label)", when linking to it you would do it like this: "Play It Again (record label)|Play It Again". The double quotation marks ~ " ~ I have used in this example are replaced, however, by the double [ and ] brackets. The other possible problems with what you were trying to do was using "Play it Again" instead of "Play It Again" (with a capital I in It). The link won't work in this case. Also it seems you are sometimes typing square brackets ~ [ ] ~ when you should be using rounded ones ~ ( ). Hope this is clear enough. Cheers, 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and the info tobalwin (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Dear Mr Afterwriting, you have made a lot of changes, but don't clarify on the talkpage what needs to be clarified. That seems more polite to me. You left out details which may seem unnecessary to you, but don't harm the article at all (e.g. in the fall of 1915). What is wrong with the next morning, on that evening, early February? You want more dates? Where I wrote on Friday evening, you left it out. Besides you made changes in a quote. I can't understand why someone does that. It seems wilful inaccuracy to me. Thanks for your concern.Taksen (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I only edit according to the principles of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS). According to the Manual of Style the seasons of the year, days of the week and times of day should not normally be mentioned in articles unless they are of notable significance to the information being discussed. In most cases this isn't so and, therefore, they should not normally be mentioned. As it did not seem that these details were of notability it was appropriate to remove them. If I altered a quotation then that was a mistake. I will neeed to check. However, the article is so badly written that it may not have been clear to me that it was a quotation. Afterwriting (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The relevant MoS principles regarding seasons are found at WP:SEASON as follows:
Seasons. As the seasons are reversed in the northern and southern hemispheres—and areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording (in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September) is usually preferable to a "seasonal" reference (summer 1918, spring 1995). Even when the season reference is unambiguous (as when a particular location is clearly involved) a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest). Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle (migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring). Seasons are normally spelled uncapitalized.
The preferable wording, therefore, is either to a specific date or month. When this is not possible then something like "second quarter of 1915" is recommended. Please follow this MoS editing principle in future. If the season is of significance for particular weather reasons then the reasons for this should be explained. Afterwriting (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wendy Hughes 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Hughes died of cancer in the morning of 8 March 2014, aged 61.<ref>[ "Actress

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Almeda University[edit]

You're constantly making unsourced edits to the Almeda University. Please see and you'll know this has been discussed before and we don't believe we have reliable sources to support the statement that Almeda is a diploma mill. See For a school like Almeda, "distance education" and "unaccredited" are among the most salient points to be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the discussion page if you want to argue a case. Interesting that you are an IP editor who is only editing this article. Perhaps you might have a good read of the WP:COI policies. Any suspected COI editing will be reverted as a matter of principle. Afterwriting (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's already been argued and you're not adding anything to the article, not even references by changing it to Diploma Mill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The previous discussion was about the lead section's use of "unaccredited". If you want to start a separate discussion about the info box terminology then do so. Afterwriting (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
No, the term diploma mill has been explicitly covered and removed as seen here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion, as with the other discussion, concerns the opening paragraphs only. The current issue only concerns the info box. I don't see why I need to keep repeating this fact to you. It is a separate issue. The body of the article, complete with acceptable references, mentions instances where your institution is considered a diploma mill. So argue a case about the info box on the article's discussion page and stay away from my talk page in future. Afterwriting (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

About Randy Edelman[edit]

On his page, you're having an edit war with a user of the same name. I thought it was either frowned upon or against the rules to edit your own article. --Fungal vexation (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Another question, this one unrelated. You deleted this edit citing an invalid source. What constitutes an invalid source? --Fungal vexation (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm unconfirmed and can't post images so I just copied and pasted the exchange.

(16,510 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 601162023 by (talk) Invalid source.) (thank) (cur | prev) 07:59, 25 March 2014‎ (talk)‎ . . (16,516 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Undid revision 601147352 by Afterwriting (talk) - Check your sources.

--Fungal vexation (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Same old thing once again[edit]

If you remember this edit, I would like to mention that similar edits have been made by same user once again.[1] Although I've reverted him on a few pages for these unconstructive edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vice-chancellor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014[edit]

Today's motto...

Yeah, I was in the s--t.

Nominate one today!

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ruby Murray 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • aspx?co=15&to=286&ca=0&sca=0&navID=1 Culture Northern Ireland website.]</ref> Her [[human voice|voice]'s distinctive sound was partly the result of an operation on her throat in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BISHOP revision[edit]

Hi. I've started a discussion about revising the WP:BISHOP guidelines HERE. Please add your comments and invite everyone you think would be interested. Thanks! Dan BD 16:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply at ACIM article talk page[edit]

Hi Afterwriting, I left a reply for you at the ACIM article talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, another reply there. Scott P. (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And again, Scott P. (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Afterwriting, If you would like to know the "rest of the story" you would be most welcome to email me at the link from my user page. If not, that's fine too. I thank you for putting up with me, teaching me valuable lessons about cite quality, and about my own need to be more civil. Scott P. (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


I am pretty sure that your aggressive and combative edit summaries [2][3] are both unnecessary and unlikely to help achieve consensus in a collegial atmosphere. SpinningSpark 14:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you obviously haven't noticed the repeated incompetent editing behaviour I have been putting up with from the other editor who has consistently seriously misrepresented and twisted the words of references and my own comments to mean things which they clearly did not. Afterwriting (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You have no grounds for the claim that I have not looked at anything else. In any case, my point stands, such edit summaries are not helpful in any way other than possibly making you feel better. If anything, they are likely to be unhelpful. If the dispute ever gets to ANI the discussion could easily get sidetracked into your behaviour and the substantive issue get forgotten. I have seen that happen numerous times; it is in your own interest to remain civil no matter what the provocation. SpinningSpark 17:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I look forward to reading your advice on the other editor's talk page about his own unhelpful behaviour. Afterwriting (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I have already given him my advice on the help desk. SpinningSpark 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Then I hope your advice will have an effect in stopping his patronising and totally false speculations and distortions of my comments. His behaviour is more offensive than my "aggressive and combative" edit summaries. Afterwriting (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I seem to have rubbed some nerve raw with you. Perhaps I should not have responded "in kind" when you first removed what seemed to me at the time as a perfectly good reference, calling it "dubious". Actually, I know I could have been more thoughtful in my response there, sorry. Your attention to this point did help me to clarify that Schuller had apparently never publicly or officially endorsed ACIM, but still he has clearly allowed it to be taught in his church. Admittedly, there is a subtle difference there, and I thank you for pointing that out. Was that not a sufficient concession? Now it is starting to seem to me that you are simply opposed in basic principle to any connection between ACIM and the Crystal Cathedral being reported on, regardless of true cite quality. You have yet to explain to anyone exactly what it is about the last cite that renders it "unreliable". Is there some way that we could ever arrive at some kind of an agreement or compromise that might include some form of at least begrudging mutual respect, along with more "constructive" communication? Or is such simply not an option you are prepared to offer? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia, as always, is a learning process for me. I have now found a hard-published book reference to this point, and inserted it in the article. Perhaps you will find this latest reference to be "reliable". Scott P. (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As usual all you do is twist my comments to suit your own ideological bias and erroneously speculate on my motives. Your editing behaviour is highly offensive. Other editors on Wikipedia should not have to tolerate this. And you seem to be completely clueless when it comes to understanding what are reliable and unreliable references. Afterwriting (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jackie Paris 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • _ylu=X3oDMTBudjI1N2xwBF9zAzg0MzkzMzAwBHNlYwNhcnRmZWF0 Jackie Paris: Biography]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Afterwriting. You have new messages at Bermicourt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:AldezD. [4] AldezD (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)