User talk:Cherkash

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

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

F1 results[edit]

I suspect the consensus was a long time ago and is in the archives somewhere. Long enough ago that it's worth starting a new discussion if you want to. The thing is, you're changing one of Fangio's results without changing any of the others, nor those of any other driver, creating a confusing inconsistency which couldn't realistically remain anyway. The consensus pretty much lies in that not a single shared drive result from any GP shows both drives and none of the editors who have drawn up the results tables has included both drives, or all three drives in some cases. I'm pretty sure that most other sources also only include the best result. In any case, it is polite to discuss major changes to the results tables, particularly when someone has reverted you, and particularly if it is going to be left to other editors to do all the rest of the hard work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It might not have been clear, but my facts are sound. I was referring to the type of article which you edited, i.e. the driver articles. As you point out, the race articles do show shared drives - all the race articles show them, in fact. But the driver results tables show the best result only, and that is what I was referring to.
Yes, it's impossible to update all the results at once - I'm sure you realise I wasn't suggesting that anyone attempts that. What is perfectly possible is that an editor can add all a driver's shared drive results to his results table in one edit. Not only possible, but easy, if it were desirable. Fixing one result in a single results table on a single page, and ignoring other results in that table which would need to be updated to match - that is not acceptable. That's my point. Also, it's not a question of my not wishing to "fix" the other results which you missed - I simply don't think all the shared drive results belong in a simple results table. The results tables are not stats dumps, and several editors work quite hard keeping excess information out of them to keep them readable for all users. Shared drives are indicated in the tables via asterisks (I did the majority of them myself), but only the best result is shown. A simple click will take a reader to the race article, where all the shared drives and relevant drivers are explained. To my knowledge, no driver results table shows multiple results for a single race. As I say, my revert of your edit was nothing to do with not wishing to do the other results as well - I just think it's excessive information for the driver results tables. Even if it were desirable, I disagree strongly that fixing one result in a table and ignoring the others is an acceptable method of editing. As you say, cross-checking and rooting out inconsistencies in F1 results is tedious and time-consuming, and to have inconsistencies wilfully inserted into a single table just makes life more difficult. As I said before, creating difficulties that other editors will find inconvenient requires a discussion and a consensus. Of course not everyone will agree, but in the F1 Wikiproject we have a very good record of working to consensus, even editors whose point of view is against consensus. Without consensus and discussion, the accuracy and consistency of such a large number of individually constructed results articles and driver tables will collapse very quickly. The F1 results data of the various articles is actually very consistent as it stands. Sure, in an ideal world, Wikipedia would have cross-referenced, self-updating articles. But it doesn't. Bearing in mind that none of us has any control or input into the data model that Wikipedia uses, I suspect you're right that it's too much to ask. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions go on the talk page[edit]

Hi. Regarding your recent edits to the 1961 and 1964 United States Grand Prix articles, you certainly have valid points and it would be interesting to find proper reliable sources for the answers to them. However, talk pages are where questions and discussions should be placed so if you have any more then please use these, or visit the WP:F1 talk page and raise them there if the point is a broad one. As for your observation regarding the copyright status of the text on these pages I did a little digging and the only sites that I can find that use that material are either mirrors of Wikipedia or were placed after the text appeared on Wikipedia, so no need to worry. Pyrope 03:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for popping into the conversation - I've always believed that the boxquoted text on the American GP articles were quotes from Road and Track, which is given as a reference (not a cited one, however) at the bottom of most of the articles. I've restored the boxquoting on the 64 article, which at least makes it clear that it is a quote. Without it we're simply using someone else's text. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I understand from Pyrope that I was wrong about that. My apologies! 4u1e (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Article importance[edit]

Rather than "plenty", there is precisely 1 GP article rated top and 5 7 non-2010 races rated high. All the others are either mid, or in the vast majority of cases, low. Unless something of above-average importance happened during that race, they are rated as low. Generally, all races are rated low, unless, as I say, something important happened during them.

You seem to misunderstand the rating system. It is not the content of the talk page that is being assessed, but the importance of the subject of the article to the WikiProject. The rating on the talk page has nothing to do with the discussion on that talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would add that your assessment of the 1950 British GP as "high" is an accurate one, as it was the first World Championship race. It should not have been rated as low. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The importance tag is strictly applied by the F1 Wikiproject, rather than by the encyclopedia as a whole, so the importance is seen solely from the point of view of those editors most likely to work on the article. It's a way of flagging the article up to be one which a lot of people will want to read for whatever reason - the San Marino 1994 article gets up to 10,000 hits per month, whereas for example, the 1994 Belgian GP gets around 700 hits per month. A "top" or "high" importance article should thus, theoretically, receive more attention from editors in terms of checking edits and spending time improving it. That's not to say that a greater level of accuracy is sought for it - all articles should receive full attention in terms of accuracy - but if a Wikiproject editor is looking for an article to work on, the importance scale will show him/her which articles are seen as higher priorities for the benefit of more readers. Likewise, in terms of drivers, Ayrton Senna (55,000+ hits per month) is top importance, while Alessandro Pesenti-Rossi (180 hits per month) is low importance. It's to few people's benefit if an article that nobody reads is expanded to a high degree while a popular, "important" article is neglected. The importance scale is a guide to help achieve this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, basically. I don't know if the guys who rated the articles (and some aren't rated yet) actually checked the traffic stats, but any editor with a strong knowledge of F1 would be able to judge which articles are going to attract the most readers. A quick check of a dozen or so articles shows that the importance levels are quite closely in line with article traffic. I don't think it needs to be definitively accurate or verifiable since the ratings are not in article space and are just as a guide for the WikiProject. Yes, a bot that could update the importance levels according to up-to-date article traffic stats would be useful, but I wouldn't have the first idea about how to create one. There are ways to flag up race articles that lack infoboxes or track diagrams etc, but it's outside my sphere of knowledge. I generally know which ones need doing - the problem is often not in identifying which articles lack certain aspects, but rather in finding editors who want to do the fairly tedious work of adding relatively dull info. Sometimes someone feels like it and does a few, but it can be pretty boring, and other work is more atractive. All race articles have the basics, i.e. full results, polesitter / winner / fastest lap etc and a succession box linking to other races. But obviously the races from the last few years are far more detailed simply because Wikipedia was online when those races were held. Older races require more research and hard work to get them up to scratch, and these articles attract very few editors. Also, there are well over 800 race articles and this can seem daunting, especially to new editors. This is more of a problem than flagging up those that need work. Article traffic stat tools are many, but I use this one [1]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Obviously the systems that FORIX and others use are preferable to the relatively long-winded manner in which Wikipedia is edited, and it would be great to have tools which might help Wikipedia editors speed up the full construction of the large grid of F1 data across all the relevant articles. Whether or not those tools exist already, or if not, whether or not they could be created, is something way outside my expertise. I'm sure other subjects within Wikipedia would also benefit from this, but I don't know of any effort being made in that direction. It may well be that other members of the F1 Wikiproject are less inept than I at this kind of thing, so it may be worthwhile discussing it there, or contacting some members directly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
A good place to start might be the technical section at the Wikipedia:Village pump - that's where you might be most likely to find folks who are more au fait with the technical stuff. They should be able to point you in the direction of members who may be working on similar things already. Application to F1 data will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, but it'd be worthwhile going there when there's more of a concrete proposal, as it's more suited to direct discussion of policy implementation. The more advanced the proposal, the more likely some of the cynics there will jump onboard. Good luck :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari's 800th Grand Prix[edit]

Hi Cherkash. I've re-raised the issue of Ferrari's 800th Grand Prix at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Ferrari's_800th_Grand_Prix - I thought it made sense to have the discussion in one centralised location, since it potentially affects several articles. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of dates by day of the week[edit]

Hello Mister Cherkash, sehen Sie bitte die File:Permanent_calendar_greg.svg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Perpetual_calendars) Hier werden viele Fragen beantwortet. Cherkash, please see the file: Permanent calendar greg.svg Here many questions are answered. Greetings from saxony --LenderCarl (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari entries[edit]

Hello there, and thank you! In response to your comments:

  • To compile the information, I used the entry lists present on each season article for information on Entrant/Chassis/Engine/Driver(s), and cross checked the results against the Grand Prix article and F1.com results. For referencing, I have yet to see these large tables referenced elsewhere, (including the works table above) so I am unsure of the best way to proceed. So far on the tables I have done, I have not provided references due to the complexity of multiple races and seasons included on one table. I have thought of providing links to results archives at the bottom of the page, and it would be trivial to reference in this way, I'm not sure what your suggestion might be?
  • Again, for the belief it is complete, I have checked the provided entry lists on the articles, and a spot check on results tables did not reveal any more private Ferrari drivers missing from entry lists. It is possible there are more entries I have missed of course, but I do doubt that. Ideally, the editor(s) that provided the entry lists on the season pages could provide the source for the information.
  • As for Scarlatti at the Monaco GP, I did not notice he was listed as a self entry on his article, and presumed he was under Scuderia Centro Sud for the Monaco race as well. I'm afraid I don't have a definitive answer to that one.

QueenCake (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the need for some proper referencing on articles, and I've provided my opinions on the discussion. As for Scarlatti, if indeed he entered himself, I fully agree with a correction to the table. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CFR links not current[edit]

Dear Cherkash, Thanks for the modifications to links. Unfortunately, the links created for CFR are not current. The GPO has instituted an e-cfr system which has text of CFR updated daily for changes that become effective the previous day. The WP automated link is to OLD (like over a year old) regs. Can you revert until the WP tool is fixed? Thanks. I'll also let an Administrator know. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

URGENT: Please discontinue use of the built-in CFR links[edit]

Dear Cherkash, As I indicated above, the links to the Code of Federal Regulations automatically generated within Wikipedia are to OLD regulations, which are now over a year out of date. It is critical that you discontinue use of that set of linking features until it is fixed. I will revert your edits for this reason. I have asked ArthurRubin to help with fixing the automatic links. Until they are fixed, DO NOT USE THEM! Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I was unable to revert, and have referred it to an administrator. Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

SantasOnSteps.jpg Happy new year!
We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard-to-identify characters[edit]

Please do not change HTML entities to characters in situations where the characters will be hard to identify in edit mode, as you did at Greenwich Mean Time. See WP:MOS#Keep markup simple. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Possessives in grammar[edit]

If you read MS:POSS, you will see that both versions are acceptable:

Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

This applies equally to Mercedes, Lotus and Williams.

Trust me. I'm an English teacher. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The MOS specifically states that s' is acceptable if it is consistently used throughout the article, which it was prior to your change. The359 (Talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This has been raised multiple times, and every case I'm aware of, the conclusion has been to use -s's instead of -s'. I'll refer to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#MOS:POSS_broken and Talk:Steve_Jobs/Archive_3#Jobs.27_or_Jobs.27s.3F for some examples of extended discussions. Prisonermonkeys, being an English teacher, I suggest you re-consider your point in view of overwhelming recommendations in numerous manuals of style. cherkash (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've created a copy of our discussion on the article's talk page, please continue discussion there if you want to pursue it further. cherkash (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have reverted your changes pending the outcome of the discussion on the Talk page. I don't know how familiar you are with the Formula 1 project, but when someone proposes changes to an article, we generally prefer to keep the article in its original state until a consensus is reached. This promotes article stability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop editing the page. You are already in violation of 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You were told that you needed a consensus to get those changes through. Currently, there is a preliminary consensus against you. Therefore, you are the one who is in violation of 3RR. That's how we've done it in the past, to keep it consistent with the policy of waiting for consensus before making changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2012 Formula One season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

  • Just to be very clear, you have broken the three revert rule. This is your very final chance to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Further editing against consensus will result in a block. My banhammer is ready. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks Aldo samulo (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karaite Folk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (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) 11:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Overtagging[edit]

re Frank J. Burgoyne and Émile Sagot‎: these are substubs created to support documentation of copyright info needed for their work on Commons. Now obviously they're orphans, fair enough. And I suppose they're technical "dead end pages" since they've no wikilinks. But what the heck needs to be "wikified" about them? Rd232 talk 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikify[edit]

Hi, just so you know, the Template:Wikify has been deprecated. AWB programmers have been notified that it needs removing from its system, but in the meantime, would you please be able to not add it if AWB suggests it? Other tags that are now used are Template:Underlinked or Template:Dead end. Hopefully a new version of AWB will soon be released that does not add Wikify. Thanks! Delsion23 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

ABW[edit]

[2] ;) SpiderMum (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, why did you add these tags here? The article had a category, and does not need wikifying. Please be more careful when you tag in the future, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

and now I see you've been warned above about adding the wikify tag and about overtagging. Please slow down and stop these unnecessarily and undesirable tags. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I will add my 2 cents: Apperently this editor doesn't read his messages, and instead of discussing the matter with you, went in and orphan tagged my Nebria species, on which I worked hard! Can someone stop him? I already removed the tag from 2 of the species, but I can't run and revert every edit he makes!--Mishae (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Orphan tagging of Nebria dahilii was technically correct (it was an orphan at the time). I haven't checked the others. More concerning is lack of discussion. Rd232 talk 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't discussed it with you, but I did discussed it with another editor. Again, I was just confused here, but Cherkash should have replied to his messages above, especially if he is not on Wikibreak (and I don't see that tag on his talkpage!) Ofcourse, I don't mean should or else, I mean as a polite editor... Not that I saying that he is not, but I personaly, always reply to the concerns either on mine or Ryan Vesey's talkpage!--Mishae (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for the comments. Wikify tag has indeed been deprecated, so I'm not using it anymore. cherkash (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the deprecation myself (and I'm not sure I entirely agree with it...). Rd232 talk 17:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you add the uncategorized tag to an article which had a category, then, and more importantly, why are you ignoring concerns on your talk page about your out-of-control tagging? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VHF omnidirectional range, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radial (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) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aeroflot Flight 902, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cherkash. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer Talk 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeping established citation style[edit]

This edit converted a citation to a citation template when such templates were not in use in the article. Please be sure to read WP:CITEVAR. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aeroflot Flight 902, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Jetstreamer Talk 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, you clearly haven't been reading your own talk page, specifically this section, so I'm posting on both our talk pages in hope that you'll read at least one. I gave you very clear reasons why you are talking nonsense per Wiki policies, and I gave you a 3 days courtesy period to respond and continue discussion before I've re-established my changes. All you do is continue bullying tactics instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion. I'm going to move this conversation to the article's talk page for future record, and I'm warning you that it's your behavior that is actually considered disruptive in this case. So stop it! cherkash (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cherkash. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer Talk 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I do not save such edits [3] [4] – they clutter watchlists and logs – and wish you the same. AWB was not designed for such edits, please reconsider. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Langlois Lefroy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP (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) 11:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Private pilot licence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glider (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) 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger of glider articles[edit]

You have given no reason, as is customary and you should read the talk pages for these articles. This has been suggested before and rejected. The term glider can be applied to a wide variety of aircraft - hence glider (aircraft). The type used for sport - glider (sailplane) are the most common type and a large amount can be said about just these that is specific to these. Trying to merge would produce an article trying to cover too much ground. Please remove your tags from the article.JMcC (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you JMcC (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Those metropolitan areas moves were not "uncontroversial"[edit]

Hi. I don't think we've met. I see that you have been converting terms like "Metropolitan Statistical Area" from proper nouns to common nouns. You apparently thought these were uncontroversial moves (and convinced an administrator to do some of them on that basis), but they were contrary to consensus at the recent Requested move discussion at Talk:Statistical area#Requested move (also see prior discussion at User talk:Buaidh#"United States" statistical area article titles).

Because "Metropolitan Statistical Area" is a proper noun (at least as used in the articles) I would like to undo the moves of Metropolitan Statistical Area and List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, but first I wanted to make contact with you and alert you to the background of those names. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing my attention to these discussions. Although it doesn't seem to me that a reasonably agreed-upon consensus was reached, I will nevertheless stop further edits for the time being. I think this topic deserves further discussion. Seems it has never reached further than temporary naming of a handful of the articles. cherkash (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Orlady, would you mind elaborating why you consider those names to be proper nouns? I understand they may have specific meaning in the US context (or even more specifically, as used by OMB), but it's not clear how this makes them proper nouns. E.g., there are many terms which are specific to a given industry, profession, or region – but the usage which is limited to a certain population doesn't necessarily make the nouns proper (nor does it require capitalization). cherkash (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't respond sooner, Cherkash. Oddly enough, I think I read your 23:23 comment before you posted your followup 13 minutes later, and I failed to notice your followup.
The principal logic is/was that the terms "Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Micropolitan Statistical Area" and "Consolidated Statistical Area" are consistently treated as proper nouns by the Office of Management and Budget[5], which defines these terms. This is muddied, however, by the fact that the Census Bureau seems to treat them as common nouns: [6], [7]. An additional consideration is/was that the use of a proper noun emphasizes that the distinction between these terms in this usage and any generic usage that these terms (and related terms like "metropolitan area") might have. Further, in retrospect I must observe that the opinions I expressed in those discussions likely were influenced by two possibly idiosyncratic perspectives of mine:
  • My desire to reach a consensus that is likely to be reasonably stable (meaning that it does not deeply upset and offend editors with strongly held views in support of positions that are not inherently unreasonable), because I don't like interminable arguments.
  • My desire to avert what I see as a rigid thinking pattern prevalent at Wikipedia, wherein federal government definitions are equated with Revealed Truth. In this case, that thinking pattern perceives that the only U.S. "metropolitan areas" eligible to be discussed in Wikipedia articles are the officially defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas. By capitalizing the term "Metropolitan Statistical Area", I hoped to emphasize that this is a very particular term and that there are other legitimate interpretations of the term and concept of a "metropolitan area". --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see your arguments. They certainly have some merit. As I mentioned before, the terms being capitalized is certainly just a matter of typographically setting them out in the text, rather then of the OMB referring to them as proper names. Compare, e.g., capitalization of non-specific terms like "Metropolitan Statistical Area" rather than "Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area" in the first link you quoted. Although the latter can be somewhat construed to be a proper name, the former is clearly just a term, not a proper name.
With respect to your other reason (to set those article apart from "metropolitan area" articles/terms to distinguish OMB-specific use), I think the term MSA vs MA already does sufficiently serve this purpose. I think I wouldn't be far off by saying no one uses the term MSA in everyday speech – so the specificity of the "metropolitan statistical area" already sets those articles apart and distinguishes them enough.
Having said this, I do whole-heartedly agree with you that there's nothing about federal government definitions (or any government's for that matter) that sets them apart from other sources. Government documents are not more authoritative for Wikipedia than other documents, and one could even argue that in some cases they could be more dubious. There's also nothing about them that makes them inherently authoritative secondary sources. Also, to make a somewhat different but related point: just because a government cared to speak/write on a subject, it doesn't automatically make the subject notable. So your point is well taken. I would still say this doesn't make capitalization necessary. cherkash (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Apollo asteroids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (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) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steven Brill (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare (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) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see talk page of article Chargemaster[edit]

Please see talk page of article Chargemaster, at Talk:Chargemaster#Older_accessdates. — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a bit more there. I think you are mistaken about your assumptions about "accessdate", not sure where you came up with that. — Cirt (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Source obscurity not a valid reason for deletion[edit]

In nominating Axel Vogt for deletion you cited obscurity of sources as one reason. Please note that this is not a valid reason for deletion in any way, shape or form. I agree that the article in its current form doesn't make it obvious why he's worthy of note (it takes someone with knowledge of the subject matter to know that being the chief mechanical engineer of the richest railroad in the world at the time can't fail to be notable, but that's too obscure to be useful). I'm going to expand the article so that his notability is much more obvious. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey Cherkash

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Hurricane Sandy[edit]

I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chechen–Russian[edit]

Not sure why you thought a hyphen would be better than an en dash in this connection of two parallel terms in the sense of "versus". It's a classic en dash situation. I fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. cherkash (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of en dashes in Boeing airplane numbers like here and runway numbers like here are probably also due to an over-zealous application of a script to where it does not apply. Please review and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure in these cases. Runway numbers seem to be a no-brainer for an en-dash: an "and" case. Model numbers – I'm not sure either way: I've seen en-dashes used in this situation, and there's no clear justification I can see for either hyphen or en-dash. cherkash (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps so on the runway numbers; it's at least logical, and they're often seen with slash, which is a good sign that a dash is good alternative. But airplane models like the Boeing 737 Classics, I'm pretty sure not. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isadora Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salchow (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) 09:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Land bank (banking)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Land bank (banking) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, and no more than a dictionary definition.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 11:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447[edit]

Dear Cherkash. My point is not about the flight code "AF447" have been retired (this is fact). But the flight (or route) still exists. As it stands, it seems that the route no longer exists.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vitelline duct, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lumen, Vesicle and Ectopic (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, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Thanks for your edits to Anatomy articles recently! Sorry, we only have this one template to greet new users! --LT910001 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Local government area 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:
  • {db-move|Local Government Area|no need for caps in the title (subject is not a proper noun, also see the usage in the article itself}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Bayes' theorem[edit]

Hello Cherkash. Regarding the spelling Bayes's: see multiple prior discussions, such as those in Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 1, Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 4 and Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 5. If you still think it should be moved, see the instructions for opening a Requested move at WP:RM/CM. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Pythagorean theorem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - DVdm (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vnukovo International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IMC. 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) 09:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ternopil, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
If you believe you have a policy and/or guideline rationale for introducing the German and Russian nomenclature into the lead, please follow WP:BRD. You've simply restored your own unexplained content without bothering to discuss it on the corresponding talk page.
Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Lit parameter for languages[edit]

Hi Cherkash,

I have replied to your message at User talk:Yaris678#Lit parameter for languages.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to File:USA annual VMT vs deaths per VMT.png[edit]

Please stop messing up the graph File:USA annual VMT vs deaths per VMT.png. You can copy it and upload your own version if you like, but when you edit the original file you're affecting four articles that use it. Copy it and upload your own version. If you think your version is better, then discuss it on the page you want to change it on. Please stop edit warring and use talk pages to justify the changes you want. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to distance yourself a little bit from your creations. Your tone presumes I've been editing it and "edit warring" with you for quite a while, whereas in reality this was my first involvement with this graph.
Now, to the essence – which version is better is debatable. I've brought up a particular argument for my revert of your earlier revert, namely that the other editor's version contains longer time series and is easier to read. You may agree or disagree – but you need to stop making this personal without any reason, and should discuss better reasons for why your own version is better than a very vague "you're affecting four articles" argument... cherkash (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if you want a specific suggestion – extend the graph to at least 2012, and make some kind of grid visible in the background (for large graphs with a lot of empty space it's the must to increase readability) cherkash (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
When you come along and revert the way you did, rather than take up the discussion, what kind of reaction do you expect? If it's already been reverted once, the time is to talk, not keep reverting. The constructive thing to do is to go to Talk:Transportation safety in the United States and see if others think that article is better with a graph with more lines on it. I can provide plenty of reasons why it's not helpful to add chartjunk to this graph; there's significant work in infographics design against excessive lines that convey little information. Let's discuss it on an appropriate talk page. Then more editors can weigh in and see if they think that improves the article. And if you create a second copy, you can avoid the confusing situation of changing four articles with an edit to one image. For example, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration uses the graph on a smaller scale than Transportation safety in the United States, so the grid doesn't look at all the same in both articles, and changes need to be handled separately. You can do that by uploading your own version. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
If you really insist on a particular formatting, please make it easy for others to update the data (or do it yourself diligently, whenever new data points come out – annually or otherwise). May I suggest one of the examples of making it easy for other editors: check out, e.g., source code here – by no means the only way to do it, but one of the easier ones to let others update data without messing up your favorite format. What you are currently trying to do – holding on to a format, and sacrificing most recent available data to it – is not tenable. cherkash (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vyazma Airport, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages L-39 and ROSTO. 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) 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Plain dashes in airport articles[edit]

Hello. Your recent history shows that you have been replacing plain dashes with ndashes across a number of airport articles. I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_13#Dashes_for_ndashes_reverted. The project consensus is to use plain dashes.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Which dash is plain? em or en? Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Plain dash = hyphen.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering. In that previous conversation, nobody appeared to know the difference between a hyphen and a dash. An en dash is actually more sensible in these constructs, if I understand what you're referring to, unless there's an agreement on a modified style for the abbreviated versions. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Dicklyon on this one. There is no such thing as a "plain dash": there are two kinds, en dash and em dash. Hyphen is distinct and is used differently than either one of the dashes. Using hyphen instead of a dash is purely a shortcut and convenience, based on the hyphen/minus key available on most keyboards. Stylistically, semantically, and typographically, we shouldn't be confusing all four (hyphen, en dash, em dash, minus sign). So my edits reflect fairly standard English rules and guidelines on which one of the four to use in which case. The case of airport names is a fairly straightforward case where an en dash is appropriate (instead of an easier-entered hyphen). cherkash (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:AIRPORT regarding this. Please do not make more of these modifications until the matter is settled.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacing HTML entities with indistinguishable marks[edit]

In Watt you replaced all the HTML entities for dash-like marks with the corresponding characters. However, it is difficult to distinguish these marks (for example, – from −) in edit mode. I have undone the edit in accord with MOS:MARKUP. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Dashes are not mark-up – they are punctuation. Just because characters look similar, doesn't mean we need to start going out of our way and use HTML markup to disambiguate between them when they are used. Consider "l" (small L) and "1" (one), O (capital O) and 0 (zero), and other such pairs. We don't use markup in those cases, neither there's a need in dash/hyphen pair. Just use whatever punctuation is appropriate (as text, not markup!), but even if you make a mistake don't sweat it, as someone else might fix it for you later. cherkash (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, because letters of the alphabet are easy enough to distinguish through context and spell checking. Dash-like-marks are hard for editors who wish to copy-edit an article to distinguish. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There's not that much to distinguish. It's punctuation, and it actually looks different in most fonts. So you either notice the difference and spot the incorrect one and fix it, or you don't and then someone else will. Again, no need to turn proper punctuation into mark-up. cherkash (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, most browsers and editors would search for what you ask for – so you can easily search for only hyphens or only dashes depending on what you are trying to do with your copy-editing. cherkash (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you see discussion[edit]

Did you see the discussion about proper capitalization of a header in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#2RR, no BRD, is Senator capitalized in context? Needs you to put forward your argument for lower case, otherwise it will go back to upper case. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)