User talk:CircleAdrian

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

Welcome!

Hello, CircleAdrian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I also wanted to mention to you that there is a preview button so that you can see how your edits will look. It is located to the right of the submit button. 018 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RAN article[edit]

HI! I am the guy that wantonly and callously cut large swaths of your editing rainforest to the ground. I may have been grumpy, I may have been out of line, or I may have had low blood sugar. I am certainly no nitpicker, and I spend zero time waggling my finger at semantic arguments. It didn't sound right to me, which is a matter of opinion.... you cleared it up in a friendly and straight forward manner.. and I thank you. Restore it. I am so NOT a wikipedia expert, and actually as much as I would like to contribute there is an elitism here that is daunting, and the walls of nebulous acceptable practice are frustrating and arbitrary. So ... apologies! I won't bother it again. I know what it's like when people keep editing your work. UGH. BE WELL! Unclefishbits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry suspicion[edit]

Hello. You're being supected of sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse. HeyMid (contribs) 22:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this means, or where it came from. I definitely have only ever edited Wikipedia using this account. Please explain what this means. CircleAdrian (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • To answer your question at my talk page: it is considered a great courtesy to notify users being discussed or, as in this case, suspected of sockpuppetry; it allows users to comment and/or defend themselves or give their thoughts about the subject in question. I had nothing to do with that Sockpuppet Investigation; it was filed by a user named TCO. Here is the investigation in question. I simply have the page watchlisted, meaning that I can see any recent edits to that page. You were ultimately determined not to be a sockpuppet, and I do not think you are a sockpuppet either. In other words, the sockpuppetry suspicions have been cleared, and you can go on editing. I do not have much else to say about this. If you have any further questions I suggest you contact TCO. Cheers, HeyMid (contribs) 12:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much - that was exactly what I wanted to hear. CircleAdrian (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Mumma-Tudor.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Mumma-Tudor.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Balboa Creole French[edit]

Hey. I wasn't aware of the hoaxes page and if anything it would seem to encourage hoaxes, but if you want to add the info the dates the article were 3 Apr 2010 - 10 Sep 2012. Cheers, Whouk (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Econ sidebar proposal[edit]

Hello, AC. I would like to comment on your thorough discussion of the above at the talk page there, but I'm going to try addressing a somewhat prolonged problem in the current sidebar there first.

I'm afraid my thinking is along the different lines from yours, but I'd at least like to address the issue you raise. Best wishes, Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Mjs1991. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Deaths in 2013, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mjs1991 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of the poorest places in the United States 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:
  • Latino. Of these 100 places, 66 are in the former [[Confederate States of America|Confederacy]] (12 in Mississippi, 11 in Texas, 9 in North Carolina, 8 in Louisiana, 7 in Arkansas, 6 in Georgia, 4

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rosedale, Mississippi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

  • The source you provided leads to a main page of the US Census Bureau. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, actually the link didn't go to the front page of the American FactFinder Advanced Search widget like it should've. I restored the text with a better link. Like I say, there's no way to link to the specific information -- the user has to use this widget to download the relevant table. CircleAdrian (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Np. Thanks for your editing vigilance. CircleAdrian (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yesterday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Song of the Year (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) 09:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. CircleAdrian (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

National Convention POV-statement[edit]

Hi, I am not sure about meaning of POV in this case. This statement is from J. M. Thomson (refs is given) and some what close note from "revisionist" Furet. Different views on a whole such as Thompson and Furet agree on minority usage. And the whole paragraph is an explanation as to the election which did represented the whole of France as popular, but anyway it was a minority of the vote - 10%. It is about National Convention as a whole and minority of the vote, nothing to say that either group, Girondins or Montagnards represented even less. Another point was about resentment against predominance of Paris, which Girondins stressed over and over, as being 1/83 departmental minority. And these minorities really carried the revolution. BTW because of that there was Jacobin dictatorship of Committees and application of Terror. Because of that the Constitution of 1793 was suspended. Different examples from different times: minority puritans in English Civil War, bolsheviks in Russian revolutions... What do you think? --Nivose (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue to me is the second half of that paragraph, but especially the note. If this is something that someone else has stated in a source, then to me you have to present it as their view ("Thompson argues that..." or what have you) — my issue is that both the paragraph and the note are phrased as if it's your own opinion that you're presenting, rather than someone else's. It's not necessarily a POV/NPOV issue, but that tag fit it best. --CircleAdrian (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, then I don't understand meaning of refs. Ref. points to Thompson, when one can find it "word in word". On the other hand if I put "Thompson argues that...", it means that some other historian "argues" something different or opposite. But there are none as note from Furet shows. And this is not point of view, not mine or Thompson's - it is a fact, following from the first "Elections" paragraph with numbers. Should I place "Dupuy argues..." after "Therefore the impact of the universal suffrage had very little effect." in first paragraph or after "On the whole, electorate had returned the same sort of men that the active citizens had chosen in 1791."? In this article I avoided presenting contradicting viewpoints of the historians. And if there are, I would certainly put them in notes with presenting both. Let say I write about Alliende elections like "Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") with narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri and 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC)". This looks fine. But if I state that Alliende won with minory vote, this somehow becomes POV. And again there is no opinion of mine in this article; if there is a ref, it is from RS "word in word". In French Revolution actual page and majority related articles refs are misrepresented or just plain wrong or don't not exist in the source they are pointed to. In this article I tried to present this history in some semblance to actual events. --Nivose (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, revert my edit if you want. Whatever. But I don't think you necessarily do understand the meaning of references. The difference between the example that you're giving about Allende and the example in the National Convention article is that saying that Allende won the vote with a minority of the vote (while possibly a POV statement in a given article, depending on the context) is a description of what happened, while "there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen" is editorializing. Who says there's no good reason to doubt that? Is it something you say? Is it something that Wikipedia, as some vast amorphous authoritative source, says? Or is it something that Thompson says? Because if the latter, then you should state that explicitly, by saying something like "Thompson argues that..." at the beginning of it.
Also, if your quote is coming from another source "word for word," then it should be inside quotation marks — to do otherwise is to expose Wikipedia to charges of plagiarizing. That includes if it's in a note (note 1 is incredibly unclear in that sense — who is making the statement in note 1?).
That, and I completely don't understand what you're saying when you say that, when you say that "there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen" or "majorities begin revolutions; minorities carry them on," there's no need to attribute these words to Thompson because "[no] other historian 'argues' something else... as note from Furet shows." First, I have no idea how you're getting that from the note from Furet; second, I have no idea how you could possibly defend such an incredibly broad statement. There must be literally thousands of professional historians who have written about the French Revolution; you're quoting two of them. Any statement you make without attribution needs to be completely backed up by your source; if it isn't, it's POV. --CircleAdrian (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • From Help:Referencing "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution.
    In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article." --
    I bring example of Thompson and Furet because these historians from opposite schools (so personally I don't find them so opposite) agree on the same question. The same goes from chosen cited paragraphs in the article... "literally thousands of professional historians who have written about the French Revolution". Well, there are literally thousands of professional physicists out there, but only one Newton and one Einstein. One has to know the field well to know who is who. By reading the article you can decide if it is written on the basis of really RS --Nivose (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Friend, you don't get to decide which sources are authoritative & which ones aren't.
  • That's why English Wiki French Revolution is not article about French Revolution :)) All the best. --Nivose (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, the quote that you give is referring to not using quotation marks in instances where you're paraphrasing someone else's quote, not quoting it directly. A direct, word-for-word quote always needs to be inside quotation marks. --CircleAdrian (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)