User talk:Unbuttered Parsnip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Johnmperry)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome![edit]

refs[edit]

I see you adding <span style="font-family:Times;font-size:95%"> inside references.

Per WP:FONTFAMILY, one should not be changing the font-family parameter. Also, the reference font-size is already at the minimum size. Making it even smaller would violate WP:FONTSIZE. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They've been like that about 18 months. I was just reverting from {{cite isbn}} now deprecated. But I'll bear in mind when I come across them. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 16:49, wikitime= 08:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Silion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madridejos, Cebu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cebu, Philippines. 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) 11:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Regarding: User:Unbuttered Parsnip nominated his/her pages for Mfd, but it's not necessary to go to discussion... it's not an article in progress, but just a few words, so I applied the db-nonsense template, because it seemed to be the next best choice. If this isn't the right approach, what is? Thanks!

--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot do it for you, but you can resolve this by placing {{db-userreq}} on each of the pages, which will greatly simplify the process.
You added this to MfD discussion page with a 1970 date: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#January 1, 1970. Not sure why.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Cogon, Tagbilaran, 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. Thank you. CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bool, Tagbilaran. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. It's interesting that there's always a grain of helpful edits in your disruptive editing, but removing citations, changing data without sources, etc. is disruptive - so the entire edits were reverted. CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Moved Cogon, Tagbilaran discussion here[edit]

Why've you reverted my edit? It wasn't at all unconstructive - I brought all the data up to date, with 2010 population figures, and I removed all the dead links. Like I said on the edit summary.

Unlike other people, I spend time verifying what I read. And I mean time! I also worked on Bool, Tagbilaran this morning, and am currently working on Booy, Tagbilaran. They're two different places, as are Sillon, Bantayan and Silion despite what the current qua‑owner thinks.

I already have an editor-shepherd, so don't need you to mother me.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 11:43, wikitime= 03:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's good to know that you're not intending to make disruptive edits.
The proper way to resolve dead links is to either: 1) tag the citation information with the Template:Dead link tag - or 2) use wayback.com to get the archiveurl and archivedate to add to the citation. Someone spent their time at one point to properly research and cite the information and removing the citation altogether is not the right tack to take.
Some edits seem disruptive. Information is updated, but I'm not consistently seeing citations. And, you cricitize overlinking and then link common words like asphalt. That's why it seems disruptive.
I see that you removed the welcome message that had links to commons guidelines, which I think would be helpful to keep as references. But of course, that's your choice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The info is dead and superseded – 2007 census etc. – so no point in wasting time researching its accompany dead links. The official Tagbilaran city government web site no longer shows that info ("under construction" ..) and there is no barangay web site. Yes, I criticise overlinking, which predominantly means linking the same site more than once on a page. cf 2013 Bohol Earthquake which is linked 3 times each on Loboc Church and Baclayon Church, and twice on Maribojoc Church. And just because you know everything about an asphalt road surface (or think you do) doesn't mean everyone does.
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 12:10, wikitime= 04:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You removed citation info where there was no change to the information. And if you're adding new data, then instead of a citation needed template - you should post the source.
To help better describe some of my confusion: when you changed |area_total_km2 --> |area_land_km2, then the population density calculation wouldn't auto calculate, so you put added the expression {{#expr: 17114/2.044 round 0}}, which means that other editors would have to pick up the changes, too. Why change an automatic function?
Like I said above, there are always kernels of good edits that you make, but there's enough disruptive editing that it would take time to sort out what can stay and what needs to be corrected.---CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Overlinking - it's not necessarily wrong to link a place more than once in an article. The guidelines say no more than once per section. But, I wouldn't have a problem with elimination of multiple links in an article. Overlinking also means linking common words, like countries, asphalt, concrete, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the case of the Maribojoc Church article (I wasn't in any way involved in the others), it's linked once in the body of an initial section and then within the {{main}} template for that section. I wouldn't think that was overlinking... It would be wrong to remove the link to the initial use of the article name... and it makes sense to have the main template for that section. Are you thinking one of them should be removed? Which one?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Not once per section.
That guideline has been rewritten, and rightly so. I don't see that in this case the 2013 earthquake is an overlink situation based upon the scenario. You didn't answer my question, so I'm guessing you're fine with it, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(And btw I think it entirely wrong that so much earthquake information appears – this is an article about XXX Church. If the reader wants to know, s/he can follow the link.)
If it's a major concern of yours, I would recommend bringing it up on the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It was your reversion which changed |area_total_km2= to |area_land_km2=. Note that the auto function of {{infobox settlement}} doesn't work if land appears without total, which is why the #expr: was there. It made more sense to move value to total even though it may not be true.
My mistake in cutting and pasting the fields, sorry. The auto function seems to be working fine. It's not rounding as you have in the expression, but it's made the calculation. I'm confused.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Most of the citations appear to be trying to verify rumours, which seems fairly pointless. That and WP:WEASEL usages such as "Legend has it" or "It is generally believed". No point in trying to nail that jelly to the wall!
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 14:26, wikitime= 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I found a source for the one item that I would have otherwise considered a rumour. I tried to find sources for the other info - and I think it's possibly original research.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with your points about wording of the history of the name. I made some edits, but please make any adjustments to fine-tune it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think giving house-room to these folksy cod etymology snippets is a bad thing. I don't think they're worth losing sleep over / wasting time researching. As it is, I doubt these barangay pages are going to be read by more than half a dozen people.
Do you intend to go through all the pages with unsourced zip codes and area codes? Potentially there are 1200 on Bohol alone, and that's just one province.
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 19:02, wikitime= 11:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your points make sense! Regarding the zip/area codes: No, I went looking for a source for the zip/area codes when the values were changed. I just wanted to confirm that they were right... and the right thing to do was to add a citation since the value had been changed. I'm good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Cogon, Tagbilaran[edit]

I'm working on the infobox and have added back some info, including sources. I have a question on Talk:Cogon, Tagbilaran about the unusual template and change in what appear to be correct zip and area codes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bool, Tagbilaran[edit]

I've integrated many of your edits into the article. See Talk:Bool, Tagbilaran for a couple of questions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great teamwork![edit]

There's been some great teamwork on resolving open questions on the Cogon and Bool articles. Thanks for hanging in - doing your own research - and making very civil counter-claims. Great job.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dagohoy, Bohol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Misamis and Surigao. 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) 13:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite PH act[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Template:Cite PH act and Template talk:Cite PH act#Suggestion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge with categories[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am in the process of merging some small island stubs into an overall umbrella, let's call it Z. Each of these stubs includes a category for island. How do I ensure that the island itself is still categorised so? Do I include within Z a line [[Category:Islands of the Philippines|a]] for each island? So I'd have a string of entries
[[Category:Islands of the Philippines|a]]
[[Category:Islands of the Philippines|b]]
[[Category:Islands of the Philippines|c]] etc.

Documentation is not very clear. Or do I need to leave the category behind on the a... redirect page? Ditto of course for other categories.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 09:57, wikitime= 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). I did some reviews of very small villages for another country - and there was so little information available, I tagged a few articles before someone came along, removed the tags, and explained that even places with low population are considered notable for WP articles.
Why do you want to merge the articles? Did this come about as the result of the articles being tagged for possible merger and the consensus was to merge them?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Unbuttered Parsnip. To add to the above answer, as far as I'm aware an article category should only contain existing articles - not redirects - so one category tag on article Z should suffice. Sam Walton (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think there is a policy against categories on redirect pages. See for instance Category:Communities in Algoma District, it is full of italic links that are redirects. I for one have always supported this practice (compare Dalupiri Island and San Antonio, Northern Samar). That way it allows the island to be listed properly in the island category, and the target article is in the proper municipality category. -- P 1 9 9   16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I arrived at that conclusion by experimentation. Basically the category only applies to the invoking page. The second (sortkey) parameter is there more to confuse than help I think, as items then apparently get out of alphabetic sequence. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 19:31, wikitime= 11:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fort San Pedro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Miguel. 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) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Shirehampton railway station services}}[edit]

Hi. Thanks for fixing the references here, however it was unnecessary - the template is transcluded into a single page, which has the requisite reflist. For clarity I have added a noincluded reflist on the template page. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it's up to you, but generally a template should be self-contained. I picked this up from Category:Pages with missing references list. If it was a general use template, that could be propagated all over. I used the group name "§" so that it didn't inadvertently pick up other (genuine) notes and put them in the box. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 21:34, wikitime= 13:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's more to keep a massive block of confusing wikitable off the main page than anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Using as of template for school years[edit]

I've looked through the Template:As of documentation in the past and I've checked it twice, but there seems to be no protocol for using "As of|2011" to correspond to "as of the 2011-12 school year". I have been searching for a way to systematically identify school data that's out of date, but I'm not sure if the as of template is the mechanism. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alansohn: {{as of}} is used as a general way of indicating that article contains a dated statment. {{{alt}}} is a way of defining the text (I think it defaults to As of but I'm not sure). I was just trying to change as little of the original text as possible, but you could for instance write {{as of|2011|alt=As of the 2011-2012 school year}} etc. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:33, wikitime= 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrone, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bald Eagle Creek. 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, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

23:52, 12 December 2014‎ Unbuttered Parsnip (talk | contribs)‎ . . (270,393 bytes) (-972)‎ . . (→‎References: -redundant ref)

00:01, 13 December 2014‎ RAN1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (271,365 bytes) (+972)‎ . . (Undid good-faith edit by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk): One of those refs is in-use, plus the other two may be used later)

00:05, 13 December 2014‎ Unbuttered Parsnip (talk | contribs)‎ . . (270,393 bytes) (-972)‎ . . (Undid revision 637873308 by RAN1 (talk) Remove three UNUSED cites. You need one later? Put it back later. Just keep article off error report.)

00:23, 13 December 2014‎ Mandruss (talk | contribs)‎ . . (271,370 bytes) (+977)‎ . . (Undid revision 637873685 by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk) per article convention)

00:37, 13 December 2014‎ Unbuttered Parsnip (talk | contribs)‎ . . (270,393 bytes) (-977)‎ . . (Undid revision 637874849 by Mandruss (talk) Wrong is wrong, so stick your convention)

00:38, 13 December 2014‎ Mandruss (talk | contribs)‎ . . (271,370 bytes) (+977)‎ . . (Undid revision 637875800 by Unbuttered Parsnip) pls note that I combined a change with my revert, I commented out the ref that was putting the article in your tracking cat, there is no problem now)

I have put in some hours working that same tracking category, and I know it's hard because all you see is stupidity and vandalism. If that's what put you in a pissy mood, I can empathize, but the tone of your edit summaries was still over the top and uncalled for. To begin with, you could have observed that the convention in the article is to comment out unused refs, and commented that one out. Done and done. Instead, for some reason you opted to remove the ref, plus two commented-out refs that had nothing to do with the tracking category. Later, after my revert/change that corrected the problem, you didn't stop to notice that (1) the byte count of the reverts had increased from 972 to 977, so something must have changed, or that (2) the article was no longer in the tracking category. Instead, you knee-jerk responded with another revert with nasty comment. I hope this isn't how you interact with other editors all the time. "Wrong is wrong, so stick your convention"? Best of luck on improving your wikisocial skills. ‑‑Mandruss  11:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: and this relates to what? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:05, wikitime= 05:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't get your ping, G. Edward Griffin specifically. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc: All I did was take the page off the Category:Pages with missing references list (or similar). Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:40, wikitime= 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I just went through the page history of recent contributors. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus College alumni[edit]

Gah, I'm so out of practice at writing/updating articles that I have forgotten everything I once knew about formatting references! Thank you for fixing my errors. I will be overhauling the Jesus College alumni/fellows lists in the New Year, because I've not really paid them any attention over the last couple of years and there are no doubt new names to be added. It will be good to have the time to do so, without perpetually worrying about what needs to be scheduled as "Today's Featured Article", which has taken increasing amounts of my time over the last couple of years! Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 11:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of instant messaging clients[edit]

You undid an edit of mine, where I removed the sole non-notable item from a list article, with only the edit summary "completely screwed it." What does that mean? As I can't see where my removing that one item caused some sort of layout/style problem (the only thing I can think of that "completely screwed it" could mean), I restored the previous version. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Page was on the list of [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting}]] and the was a big red error message showing in one of the table cells. (Don't recall which). RV your change got rid of it. NB there has been some vandalismon some of the software pages recently. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 02:00, wikitime= 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Yeah it looks like of those little notes one was only used by the line I removed. I see you've caught that and fixed it. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is a perfectly reasonable source[edit]

I was looking at your edit, with the summary "facebook is not a valid source", and I am confused. Facebook is a excellent source, a primary source directly from the politicians compared to secondary (and thus less reliable) sources like newspaper articles. Where have you gotten the idea that Facebook is not a valid source? Thue (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thue: Exactly so. You urgently need to read WP:RS, and more pertinently, WP:NOTRS. These explicitly state (a) primary sources are not allowed; (b) social networking sites are not allowed.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 07:19, wikitime= 23:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm extremely confused and concerned that Thue as an adminstrator of 11 years standing has such a total misunderstanding of long accepted policies/guidlines. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Administrator? <gulp> Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 08:49, wikitime= 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this a punk? Someone is contending that a social networking site is a reliable source?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: You read what I (and others) read.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 09:44, wikitime= 01:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's just so funny that I thought that there is some punking going on. A biased, primary, social networking site would be better than a newspaper article by professional journalists with editorial control? It seems it must be a joke - either that or there is an interest in adding content that would not get published by a newspaper.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Not forgetting of course that a politician's facebook page is ipso facto bound to be more honest and truthful than a balanced evaluation. Not! --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 10:55, wikitime= 02:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what kind of info you are sourcing. Some info is perfectly fine to source from a facebook account. Categorically rejecting facebook as a source for all kinds of info is simply absurd. Thue (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this gets to the importance of the information. If it's not important enough to have made it into a magazine, book, magazine, or a website that has editorial control, then how important is this information, which is essentially self-published and/or original research? See self-published sources. It's just a bad habit to get into to use sources without editorial control. Facebook isn't even supposed to be used as an external link.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Weber (December 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ~KvnG 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Unbuttered Parsnip, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~KvnG 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


@Kvng: Absolutely nothing to do with me. Who's John Weber? Probably just another page short on notability nut long on errors that I picked up and kicked into wikishape. PS, try proof-reading the stuff you send out!--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 05:42, wikitime= 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

#Propety?[edit]

Can you please explain how the #property template that you have been adding at Philippine municipality pages works so I can revert the flag, seals and relevant images back to the infoboxes using the #property template.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: wikidata contains the name of the image. To revert, you just need to remove it from wikidata. I'd prefer you did that rather than change the infobox. The infobox is quite happen for there to be no entry. In fact that is the normal case.
To reach wikidata, you need to go to the relevant page, then click on "Wikidata item" on the left-hand side. To remove an item I think you need to click on 'edit' first, and that will give you the option of 'remove'.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 15:51, wikitime= 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the if statements are unnecessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems if I try to reinsert the seal/flag images using wikidata, a bot named Krbot is reverting my new wikidata edits/claims. The description of the bot is in Russian? so I can't determine its purpose.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It could be that there is a reference attached. If you click 'edit' on the reference, then you can remove it.Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 22:55, wikitime= 14:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

André Kalfayan
added links pointing to Intercontinental and Vatican
Medellin, Cebu
added a link pointing to Isabel of Spain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: producer) (January 20)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Becky Sayles was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 15:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I see what happened here: the creator of the draft article messed up the <ref> tags so that the AFC submission template was completely disabled. When you fixed the reference error, the submission template sprang into life and remembered the name of the current editor of the article - you! The workaround is to edit the {{AFC submission}} line after you've made your reference fix, and change u=Unbuttered Parsnip to u=<the original creator of the draft>. Then these accept/decline messages will be sent to the right editor. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:PH census[edit]

Could you explain your edit to this template please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As you have decided not to explain that edit, I have undone it for now. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
PS It seems to were trying to move the template back to its previous name. In that case, you should use "move" function, not copy/paste. Anyway it might be an idea to discuss this so we can decide the best name for this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ:You were the one who unilaterally decided to rename the template without any discussion. Your argument was that it would reduce confusion. However there are several Philippine-related templates already which start with or contain "PH" without confusion by anybody. On the other hand, WHICH I WROTE AS AN EDIT NOTE, there already is a template called {{Philippine census}} which is unrelated to this. So which is more likely to confuse? This template is already included on about 80 pages, with four per page. I wouldn't want to double the amount of typing just to satisfy some personal whim of yours.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 17:17, wikitime= 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, a few comments:
  • I did not understand your edit summary to Template:PH census and did not realise you were intending to revert my move. In fact I didn't even notice the corresponding edit to Template:Philippine census reference so was confused about your purpose. (That is why you I left you the message above, to clarify.)
  • Yes it is your prerogative to revert my move, but in future (as noted above), please use the "move" button to do this.
  • There is no template {{Philippine census}} - perhaps you are thinking about another template?
  • In any case, I still think that expanding the PH to Philippine is preferable, because the former is unintelligible to editors who are not familiar with these templates. (It look me a long while to work out what it meant!)
Kind regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ:Sorry I meant {{Philippine Census}}. BTW I was originally looking for an explanation of why recursion didn't work. I still don't know, but the solution you provided was elegant and more efficient. Thanks. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 07:48, wikitime= 23:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![edit]

Philippine barnstar

Let me give you this
because I know no-one else will. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 13:08, wikitime= 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bantayan Island[edit]

Thank you for your fix at Bantayan Island. I had no intention of saving it in that state. I will go back and try to figure out what went wrong.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"This shit"[edit]

"This shit" refers to your aggressive edit comments. Find another way to interact and maybe people will take your edits more seriously. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Up yours sunshine! Go read a few policy documents, such as WP:OWNER, WP:GOODFAITH Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 14:15, wikitime= 06:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Great Stink shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "I‍ '​m the one adding new material": quite patently untrue. You've altered existing material, you have added no new material. There is a discussion thread open on the talk page explaining the reasoning behind why your edits have been poor. The reverts have been based on concerns of quality. Your statement that I have been "automatically blindly reverting" is, given the reasoned objections I have provided, also patently untrue. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to shout![edit]

Referring to this edit, there is no need to shout, Parsnip! Everybody can make a mistake, but that is absolutely no reason to neither shout nor express annoyance. Just correct the error and explain it nicely. Please! Had you done that, you might even have gotten an apology from me for my mistake. But not when you behave like that. Please learn to behave. --Jhertel (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jhertel: Well you didn't spot the bold red error message the first time you caused it, nor the second, but a snippet within my edit summary caught your eye. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 09:51, wikitime= 01:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You really are a rather unpleasant person, Parsnip. All these complaints about your behavior and nothing changes. Then you judge others for behaving in a likewise manner. And giving yourself a barnstar? Very suspect. 130.160.6.55 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, whatever kind of civility you're seeking, you don't seem to have found it at University of Alabama.
Me, when my mistake is pointed out, I don't throw a hissy-fit and draw attention to myself. I just accept it, bite the bullet, and move on.-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 12:22, wikitime= 04:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"Me, when my mistake is pointed out, I don't throw a hissy-fit and draw attention to myself." That is exactly what you do. I call taking the time to figure out where my IP address re-directs to and calling me uncivil a hissy-fit (and drawing attention to yourself). I call making a snide reply to a request for a little more decorum than you showed throwing a hissy-fit. Your talk page bears record to how you rub people the wrong way. Do you honestly "accept it, bite the bullet, and move on."? Maybe in terms the technical aspect of editting Wikipedia you do, but you don't seem to when it comes to interacting with others. 130.160.36.96 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't come here to make friends, I come here to make the encyclopedia better. It needs it, as there are plenty of morons who think rules of procedure don't apply to them. WP:OWNER for instance. Or WP:CIVIL. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 07:26, wikitime= 23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Fixed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sedona Sky Academy#Sedona Sky Academy - Copper Canyon Academy. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Xwayxway[edit]

re your comment here, the use of special characters on such titles remains an issue, and misunderstandings about such names, with or without special diacriticals or other characters, have seen a lot of chauvinistic comments about native names in general; ultimately in the case of a dispute, TITLE says the choice of the original editor on a title should be respected if nothing else can be agreed upon; @OldManRivers: is not around anymore, and many of his titles have been changed by people who (a) don't know the topic and (b) don't care that such names are now standard in Canadian English - albeit when used generally don't have special characters; which is why Category:Skwxwu7mesh villages and St'at'imc don't have the special characters used when writing in the language those terms originate from.

Xwayxway, with special characters, is the choice of actual Skwxwu7mesh, not just User:OldManRivers (who himself spearheads the language programs for his people); it's a case where PRIMARYTOPIC parameters about googlesearches and stuff do not apply and are overridden by WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification. The alternate spellings, which you (incorrectly) unbolded, are various; another modern one is Qwhy-qwhy (used on the Stanley Park page I think, Whoi-whoi is much older.

I'd support an RM to move it to Xwayxway but feel it's important to respect OldManRivers'choice of that spelling, albeit without his insistence on special characters. Problem with an RM is it will wind up involving people not familiar with the subject matter and who don't care about Canadian English "normalizing"and absorbing such terms into ordinary English, which is now the norm; i.e. such a decision would not be made in an informed basis, but only on cursory and superficial impositions of guidelines, often in conflict with what other guidelines say, and not just WP:NCET either. The result, imposed by a consensus by people only familiar with guidelines (so they think) and not familiar with the subject matter, or Canadian linguistic standards, and WPCANADA conventions about native names in English, may by an older, archaic spelling, e.g. "Whoi whoi" even though that is long in disuse, or is just incorrect as with what happened to Sta7mes, or confusing like Squamish v. Skwxwu7mesh.

Another issue is that the site was Hwmethkwyem/Musqueam and Tsleil-wau-tuth before the Skwxu7mesh moved to Burrard Inlet early in teh 19th Century; the Qwhy-qwhy version of the name may be from Hulquminum, which both those bands have as their traditional languages; deciding between Skwxwu7mesh and Hmethkwyem versions of the name may be difficult; what is used by the City of Vancouver or the Vancouver Parks Board, which administers Stanley Park, may be the clincher.Skookum1 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Skookum1: All I'm after is a page title you can actually type in on a regular keyboard. Apart from Arabic, Chinese, etc. I've come across examples like this ʻIʻiwi (it's a Hawaiian bird). -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 13:32, wikitime= 05:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel the same way, which is why I filed a CfD on what had been a diacriticized form of Skwxwu7mesh and wound up seeing that railroaded by people unfamiliar with the PrimaryTopic problems of "Squamish".....similarly Category:Sto:lo and Category:St'at'imc took some doing to get fixed.....and also their main article titles. Xwayxway is at least the preferred Skwxwu7mesh spelling, without diacriticals; whether the Hmehtkwyem name should have precedence is the other issue; let me look into that; and if you wish to do a technical RM on this it may not take an RM, which can be laborious and unproductive if the usual lurkers at the RM board weigh in; they don't know or care about the subject matter or the "territorial"issues of which name to use; I'll do some searches about Qwhy-qwhy vs Xwayxway and get back to you.Skookum1 (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of nursing history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoebe (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) 09:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry about that[edit]

But I was in the middle of a massive edit to Slender Man and couldn't really deal with an edit conflict. Serendipodous 10:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Serendipodous:OK. Suggest you (a) stick up a {{under construction}} while you're working on it; (b) work it out in your sandbox first. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 19:01, wikitime= 11:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for cleaning up the references at Mirac Creepingbear. Today, I also created Parker Boyiddle, Jr. and Sherman Chaddlestone Can you give those two a look see for any mistakes I may have made. I have always done my best learning by watching a professional do his job. Thanks for todays lessons. My plan is to create many articles on American Indian Artists and Women artists in the next year. I hope you don't mind if I come to you with questions about editing, especially about references. Thanks in advance. . Buster Seven Talk 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: Yeah, I'm getting there. I see that ref all over Native American artists, in varying levels of OK-ness. I'm surprised it's not available online. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 12:13, wikitime= 04:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Buster7: I'm puzzled by your request for help – your profile shows you've been editing longer than I have, and have made alot more edits than me. So unless you're wearing dead man's shoes, I'm not sure what I can tell you. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 09:12, wikitime= 01:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I've only recently started to create articles. With that comes multiple references and multiple uses of references with different page numbers and all the different types of references and their usage and, well, it just gets confusing. Ive managed The Obama timelines for 6 years but there its just a simple use of the template menu. Other articles too where ive done some improvement of existing articles. Its just "Use the Menu". I guess it just I want to understand references better and the WP:Reference page isn't helping. You can tell me to get lost but I don't think you'll do that. . Buster Seven Talk 05:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Buster7: Ask away (no guarantee I can answer). Yeah, references are hard to get a handle on, mostly because there are several ways of doing it. Now I've the hang of them, I think the {{harv}} family are the best – easiest to work with, and providing the most useful output.
BTW Sherman Chaddlesone was actually spelled like this! --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:31, wikitime= 05:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I noticed you fixed the spelling. Thanks. I'll try to get my head around {{harv}}. I prefer easy and useful. But, at first it looks like advance trigonometry. I guess I just noticed that you do things differently than what I'm used to...like the mytime/wikitime thing. I like unique.. Buster Seven Talk 06:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Buster7: I really meant to use harv style more for academic stuff. Its main advantage is that you can present a list of sources in alphabetic order (or any, such as chronological), rather than the seemingly random way of regular {{reflist}}. Medical/scientific pages are practically uneditable because they tend to have all the citations inline. I'm quite a stickler as regards citations – if someone's gone to the trouble of writing a paper, it's the least I can do to get their names right, and the name etc. of the article. I put in all contributors even though citations cut off about the 8 mark (and harv at 4). It's no great hardship. Non-academic doesn't really lend itself to harv much.
I'm in Philippines, which is GMT+8 (same as Hong Kong etc.) --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 16:57, wikitime= 08:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Testing - ignore this - will G7 later[edit]

I've declined your speedy. Sam looks to be investigating something and he'll tag it when he's finished. In the case of a fairly new editor who is obviously messing about, yes, tag those. When it's someone who is a regular editor, assume they know what they're doing until it's been abandoned for six months (and it'll be picked up by the bot or the sell by date patrollers anyway. (Don't ask me what he's up to - I sometimes do tests like this myself that must look odd, sometimes involving my alternative non-admin account to see what non-admins see.) Peridon (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Refs within refs[edit]

The Directory of North American Painters contains informative and interesting quotes and comments along the edge of the pages with listings for a bibliography in the back pages (687 - 701). When using those side quotes (which are kind of like footnotes) in article creation, can I use the reference shown in the Bibliography as a source or do I actually have to "see" the secondary reference myself? . Buster Seven Talk 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pinf Well first of all you have to be careful about what words you copy – everything you write should be your own, not copying someone else's. You can paraphrase what's written in your own words. As regards the references, I think the main references you should actually see yourself, as others will check, but if it's just to go into a "See also" section then it is probably safe to use the reference without further research. I tend not to myself, because like I said I'm a stickler for facts – I'm a Virgo – so if I'm going to check spellings, title names etc., then that's the research. (I don't usually check the content). ––Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 23:00, wikitime= 15:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harry Braham has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Harry Braham, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hawayo Takata article[edit]

Do you realise that in reverting my careful corrections to this article that all you managed to do was to restore multiple formatting and other problems? Why did you do this? Afterwriting (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Unbuttered Parsnip. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lists of rail accidents[edit]

Please do not change the code for en-dashes in these lists to dashes. These lists have a consistent format per MOS:DASH. Mjroots (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The character string "&ndash;" takes 7 bytes and the character "–" (which is the unencoded en dash) takes one. Apart from making reading difficult, your bizarre insistence on using code instead of characters in this article alone consumes more than 2500 completely unnecessary bytes. And this is only half a decade. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 15:13, wikitime= 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Unbuttered Parsnip: As I linked to, MOS states that this is how it should be. As one of the editors who contributes to the list, I'll let you into a little secret. Copy & Paste takes precisely two keystrokes, not that the size of the page is causing an issue in any case. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franchot Tone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombshell (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) 09:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

New message from user user:Keeberry[edit]

I'm not sure why you keep moving the page I added. I see lots of negative comments regarding your actions. You stated that it's not an article? Then what is it? Where would you suggest I moved it to? You are doing the same thing to others that you were upset about.

@Keeberry: Draft:Lightshow_(Rapper) is not an article as it hasn't been accepted, nor will it be in its present form. Leave it in Draft where it belongs, then when you think it's ready to become an article you can submit it for acceptance (or not). It certain does not belong in wikipedia filespace, not ever. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 10:44, wikitime= 02:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted a new user's addition of an AFD template to this article. However, such templates aren't supposed to be removed until the AFD is closed. Would you mind explaining your removal of this template? Everymorning talk 12:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Article is still in WP:AFD.Hence reverted you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Discontinuation[edit]

Hi

"Discontinued" does not mean "Wiped out of space-time continuum". It doesn't mean "unsupported" either. It just means "no new versions will come out". We seem to have

We seem to be cursed to have this argument every time Microsoft decides to discontinue something. It takes a long time until the resistance of the fandom subsides; until they realize that they don't see any new version.

I hope this clears out everything.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Probably comes from writing in the future, obscurely. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 08:39, wikitime= 00:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

In these three edits [1], [2], [3] you removed what seem like valuable references from the article on Anand Gopal. You used the same edit summary for all three -- "References: rm redundant ref".

Could you please return to Talk:Anand Gopal and explain in more detail why you removed these references?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: redundant = no longer used = clutter. If you bother to check the page after making changes, you would see Big red error messages, one for each redundant (no longer used) ref. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 08:37, wikitime= 00:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And if the references went red because someone had made unjustifiable excisions to the article, don't your choices include reverting the questionable excisions? Suggestion -- anyone who makes excisions that leave a mess -- isn't it likely they didn't bother reading the passages they excised well enough to be relied upon? Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: I know nothing about the subject, I'm just clearing errors. I can see the article has been heavily redacted over the last couple of weeks, but I assume either that's OK or if not that someone who knows about it will revert. It's immaterial really, because a revert will also restore removed references. If the reference invocation is removed, then there's no point in keeping the citation, it just gets in the way. I can usually tell vandalism from knowledgable edits. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 13:17, wikitime= 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martinez Familia Sangeros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan (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) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decline notification.[edit]

Hey there. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of King Tatie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's plenty of articles listed that indicate importance. Take to AfD if required, though I think it'll fail. . Thank you. Sorry for the delay in notification, my script picked up the wrong person. GedUK  13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Redundant refs[edit]

I saw your changes to The Catholic University of America. I appreciate the effort in cleaning up refs, especially since I put a lot of time into clear refs as well, but I wish you had put a little more effort into looking at why those refs were creating an error message. Anon made a few edits and while the information was still there, the ref tags were removed. Looks like it was just a rookie mistake, but your deletion removed some perfectly good and valid refs. --Briancua (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Briancua: I'm not really interested in why, all I do is correct errors. If you want to revert the other user's mistake, then the refs will come back from history too, so what's the big problem? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 11:50, wikitime= 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you didn't really fix anything. You took a mistake and made it worse. I don't want to revert anon as what he added was valuable. He simply forgot to reinsert the refs. I am going to go back and do it myself, but I wish you had done it yourself and that you will be a little more careful in the future. --Briancua (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Briancua: I took a page in error and corrected it. I have absolutely no interest in the page content, and don't know whether you are correct or the other editor is. It is immaterial. You would do better wishing other people were more careful – i.e. actually inspect the page after they've fouled edited it. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 21:56, wikitime= 13:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, you didn't correct anything. You took a bad situation and made it worse. I do wish other people took more care, and if the editor in question was not anon I would have taken it up with her. I hope I would have been more friendly and constructive in my interaction with her then you seem to be with other editors as well. --Briancua (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Payment Gateway Vandalism[edit]

I disagree with your assertion that the content in Payment Gateway is redundant and will not allow that section to be deleted. If you want that content removed you will need to escalate this matter to have it discussed by others. Otherwise I will report you for vandalism. stymiee (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stymiee: Of course I disagree. You have the same worthless section in there twice, both times with the same clumsy error. Report away, but I may beat you to it. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 20:57, wikitime= 12:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Having separate articles for one person's "biography" and "filmography" is extremely common. Also, both the articles are of featured quality, and none of the reviewers/administrators had an issue with the split, because they have different scopes and are of an appropriate length. You can't put up merge banners out of your personal preference, and then have the audacity to revert when someone disagrees with you with a message like "nonsense". Seriously, some of us are helping expand the encyclopedia. Have some good faith and let others do some constructive work around here. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)