User talk:CSB radio

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

I find this pic quite funny. Don't you?

File:Sentiments par expression faciale.JPG

A Belated Welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, CSB radio. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. — I was careful to put the welcome, after your funny picture.
Thanks! I was getting hungry. Face-tongue.svg ––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 21:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, your border did work (at least for me). It surrounded your message and the TOC. ––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Delicious[edit]

Thanks for the pie! That was thoughtful. Glad the big-picture view helps. --Drmargi (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Serial Comma[edit]

YES! And punctuation OUTSIDE parens, brackets, and such - as in 'What a good idea (the serial comma).' Neonorange (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released[edit]

Hey CSB radio; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This article does not belong to you. Others can and will edit it. Using $20 words when a dime word will convey the same information is not good editing. We make pages in the encyclopedia to inform readers. How does using language that is beyond most high school graduates further that? Please undo your last edit. Any further attacks on any editors will be reported to the proper board immediately. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
In no way did I convey nor do I believe that I own the article. (I honestly don't know why you said that.)
Sorry for sounding rude; I just couldn't resist saying a punchline for the ironic joke you accidentally set yourself in.
Anyway, I'm certain the word "penultimate" is in no way at "college professor level." It is a fairly widely-used word; I think I've even seen it in tabloid-level writing. I understand and agree with your concern for overly-complicated language, I just don't think of "penultimate" as qualified and therefore will not be reverting without some serious convincing that these--are--all--examples--of--its inappropriate--usage, especially when "next-to-last" or something like that would have to be used instead. --Cheers, CSB radio (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
How about "an"? Is it really important to distinguish which episode of another show they are introduced in? This article is about a TV show that will start next year, not Chicago Fire. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the standard is for this kind of thing, but I assure you "penultimate" is not too high-level. If you really want it changed, I would suggest "at the end of the season" or something like that. I would highly recommend you consult user:Drmargi. CSB radio (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately putting untrue information is obviously vandalism[edit]

They weren't companions. Whoever put that it in the article knew they weren't companions. Putting lies in an encyclopedia is obviously vandalism. Ratemonth (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they understood. I assumed (and still prefer to assume) that they considered them "companions of the Doctor" (which they are), but didn't understand that only that episode's main companions are included, as opposed to all of the Doctor's companions that make some sort of appearance. As you can tell from their edit history, he/she is new and has been making good-natured edits as of 15:05, May 27, 2013 (UTC-4).
"Deliberately putting untrue information is obviously vandalism," but if the editor does not know it's untrue, it is a misguided mistake (as I think happened here). ––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 04:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, (I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier) there's this important policy called "good faith" you should already be familiar with.
Seriously, shame on you. ––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 22:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Crossbones (TV series), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Please do not mark changes to content as minor. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Since I didn't understand the policy, I thought it was "minor enough." Thanks for letting me know. Face-grin.svg––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 23:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I like your solution to the name issue on Crossbones. Good work. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again! I do what I can. Face-smile.svg––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 03:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

N/A vs. TBA[edit]

Hi, actually, N/A can also mean "not available", but I think TBA is OK too.

Are those pics of you? You're cute! --Musdan77 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"N/A" can mean that but that's my problem with it. When a reader sees "N/A" they (oughta) think "this won't ever apply" it should say "TBA", meaning "it'll be announced sometime".
The problem is that, while there's overlap in their meanings, one is more specific than the other.
And those pix aren't of me. I have no idea how I ran across them. (I'm trying to keep my gender ambiguous as an experiment...)  :S ––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 03:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

October 5, 2013 vs. 5 October 2013 vs. 2013-10-05(ISO 8601)[edit]

English Wikipedia is not only for selfish American people. So, I have to say, "YYYY-MM-DD(ISO 8601) is the best when indicating dates. First of all, you haven't explained at all why you could eliminate European way and ISO 8601 way. So I have to revert your selfish revert. Do you understand? -- Trendmovies (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, articles about something entirely or mostly American get American-style dates in them. I should've linked to the appropriate policies then, but looking them up now (MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT), I realize now that its acceptable for references to be exempt; so while you're reasons aren't viable, you're answer is workable. In any case, try not to be brusque or chauvinistic. Have a good day.––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)