User talk:Manytexts

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

Welcome!

Hello, Manytexts, 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! Quadzilla99 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. Hope you like it here. Quadzilla99 (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work![edit]

I saw you on the recent changes page and you look to be catching on really fast. AaronY (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

The main policy article here is WP:DEL. As a brief summary: deletion should be a last resort for articles that cannot be improved to be acceptable. So it is a good idea to have a week's discussion which may bring in people with ideas for improvement - that's the AfD process. But there are many articles so clearly unacceptable (copyright, attack, blatant advertisement, "Johnny is cool LOL!!!"... ) that (fairly tightly-defined) criteria have been agreed for speedy deletion, and any admin can delete those at sight. Even then, the workload at AfD would be unnecessarily high, so the PROD process is provided for uncontroversial deletions - if no objection is raised within seven days, it goes. Because that is only for uncontroversial deletions, anyone may remove a PROD, for any reason, and even after deletion a PRODded article will automatically be restored on request at WP:REFUND - though it may then be taken straight to AfD.

In the case you raise, I think there is enough doubt that I suggested going straight to AfD. As with many aspects of Wikipedia, there is no central Authority that will do that for you - I agree that notability is doubtful here, but I am not strongly motivated enough to do anything about it myself, though I will help if you need help with the process. The instructions are at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion, though I advise reading the whole WP:AFD page first, and looking at some current debates, say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 12, to get a feel for it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, JohnCD, didn't see your line on where to reply. Thanks for steering me in the right direction I am not so confused now. Manytexts (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ivy Benson[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. Manytexts (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Figaro[edit]

Hi, that message you're referring to is from 4 years ago :D Snowolf How can I help? 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

As per MOS:BIO and MOS:DATE, date of birth's should be set out in the lead section as (born November 12, 1972), not just the year and the specific day/month in a subsequent section. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it's impossible to keep up to date with some of the updates and changes of policies at times! --Jimbo[online] 11:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

List of works by Thomas Harrison[edit]

Thank you for your last comment on the talk page. I guess the best lesson to learn from this is not to meddle with something while it is on the main page. In this case it had been written by an experienced list-writing editor, it had been reviewed for DYK, and had been passed by an administrator. Perhaps concerns are best discussed first on the talk page, and then amendments can be agreed, or explanations given. The architect's name appropriately starts the lead, and it is linked but not emboldened; this is the agreed style for a list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Thanks for your message. I would edit the article as you see best - if the source seems at odds with what's now written, I'd just correct it and make a note on the discussion page. Thanks for clarifying your points. All best wishes of the season. Span (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Shirley knot?[edit]

Remember to check when you aren't sure, or you aren't sure you're sure, or even when sure... English is very messy, what with being a combination of Latin, Greek, German, French, Indian (preponed anyone?), and even newly invented words. Strangely, even the OED doesn't have 'pyric', but it must come from 'pyre'. Sometimes I cheat and use Google, which isn't so farfetched now that they have indexed the Google books collection.

Google "pyric herbivory"
your edit
my hissy fit

'pyric' is not a misspelling. 24.28.17.231 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My answer in case you're watching this page:
Hi thanks for sharing. My powerMac dictionary has "pyrrhic" and my inner masters-educated spellcheck picked it up first. Furthermore, Wikpedia's article Pyrrhic victory One of the first rules of google is expect misspelling as the norm & two, expect to find it when you google it. If it's American, then pardon me good sir/madam. I'm surely all for continuity in an article, though I opt for excellent spelling. And pardon me a second time for not following hissy links. :) I try to keep out of trouble on wikipedia, having been *bitten* too many times. Manytexts (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand you may be right, Manytexts (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) (people sometimes put this mark in saying "edit conflict", when the same page is simultaneously updated by multiple people - you've got a busy talk page! :-) )
Having been tickled by mention of checking WP usages, I thought to check Wiktionary and, alas, there is no 'pyric' at Wiktionary. That is not too unexpected for a domain-specific usage such as "pyric herbivory" however.
My mention of using Google is valid, I think, as it can find such strange usages and explain the 'why' of them. Thus searching for "pyrrhic herbivory" got 1 hit (at WP), while "pyric herbivory" gets 740 or so hits. While the article mentioned wildfires, I'd not thought of wikt:pyre and such derivation as a possibility. It was only after some searching (and after the "no hits" using pyrrhic) that I finally happened upon 'pyric' as the explanation.
While Google has a valid reputation for also finding the incorrect, searching for a pair of specific word combinations will be a "pretty good" verification of which one is correct. (though sometimes it can only point out that there is more than one correct answer - see WP:ENGVAR)
As far as toothiness goes, sometimes pointers are felt as too sharp. Beg pardon. As I largely do minor edits fixing misspellings, the accidental change from good to bad doubly freaks me out. Out of such paranoia I do try to check that I haven't gotten it wrong. I am surprised often enough to keep checking. I have sometimes had to search a lot to find out that e.g. "metalled road" is a perfectly valid English usage, if one is from India anyway. (And which then explains the double 'l')
As a peace offering, may I give you these gems? "Petrach" (Petrarch, "protrubences", "Butirnt" (s.b. Butrint), "helf a year", "With the induction of the Indian troops" (s.b. introduction), "unfinching", "kindgom", "color pattering", "and founted two", "Alternetivly", "in urban ares", "in scare supply", and "to aquatint himself". (that last must refer to me?) 24.28.17.231 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi again - you made me laugh so hard I can't remember what the trouble was except that we agree that in addition to Egglish being messy, the internet doesn't help except to spread the mess further. Now there are words I feel are wrong if I don't find them their. And if peeps worldwide put a's in when they doubt the existance of an e, we're in bigger trouble then before, because lately I notice it works both ways. I hope you stick around because you are both fastidious, a detailed researcher, yet flexible. Will you be getting (Indlish) an account name & sticking around? Manytexts (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC) PS I will enjoy your peace offerings gladly. Thank you. *bows*

Btw, thank you for smartening the look of my DYK article, Manytexts. Appreciate it. A: My pleasure. Manytexts (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DiDia150[edit]

Saw your work, thanks for taking an interest. I cleaned up some of the references and fixed a bad link. I wish there was a better source of information somewhere so that the article might qualify for DYK because I think strange cars of the past are interesting. --MTHarden (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:Cite when filling out the details in the reference citation. I hear what you are saying in respect to the reliability of the information, probably should check WP:IRS, which should give you some clues - anyhow good luck. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You still need to expand the citations. Dan arndt (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do is use the citation template (see above) something along the lines of the following: <--Nower, Lia. "Bobby Darin's Car Still A Dream". St. Louis Dispatch. Lee Enterprises. Retrieved February 23, 2012.  ---> Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be too hard to convert the existing references to using the format above but am happy to do it for you (simply a cut & paste exercise really). Dan arndt (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You might have to give me a partial credit on the DYK.... Dan arndt (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the barnstar (much appreciated) just a shame that the article never got recognition through the DYK process - anyway if you ever want help on an article in the future let me know. Dan arndt (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unearths[edit]

Thank you for 'unearthing' the fact that I had used the word three times in the Silks article. I am very grateful!!! Thank you. (Galaxycat (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

I was not expecting a gift at all. Thank you so much. I am looking forward to the next episode (Galaxycat (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC))


DYK for Sam Fullbrook[edit]

Orlady (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck Robert Kirk article[edit]

Indeed.


Do not delete "citation needed" and other maintenance templates without resolving the issues they've flagged[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Some of your edits removed maintenance templates from the article Manx cat. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Your removal of these template has been reverted.

In particular, your removal of {{citation needed}} templates violates WP:Verifiabilty policy. Your claim that the material flagged as uncited was actually sourced by surrounding citations is patently false (I would know, since I've done more to examine the sources in this article and where they're lacking than anyone else, and added more actually sourced content to it than anyone else; it's an article I pay attention to, if only intermittently, thus the delay in catching your tag-deleting spree). At this point, I'm wondering if you have been doing this habitually throughout our articles. Of the numerous templates you removed from that article for bogus aesthetic reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policies and practices (see your edit summary here, you only resolved a single one of them, namely the request for a definition of a term. Note also that removal of a tag is not justified on the basis that the tagger him/herself did not resolve the tagged issue, a "rationale" you used two edit summaries later; if it were, we would not have citation, cleanup and other maintenance templates at all, since all of them would immediately be reverted after being placed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ten days ago you chided, no upbraided me for deleting citation needed tags - as it was some time ago, I can only recall that it was not violating the terms you quote, but because they were in confetti status when they could have been served a) by a template overall, or b) one at the end of a para or section. Hope your nappies are not still in knots and WP has not ground to a halt over this heinous crime to publishing. Manytexts (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP is not for flamey interpersonal bickering; please save your undewear-related combativeness for some politics webboard. As each cleanup/dispute tag's own reason parameters are clear about, the entire paragraphs and sections are not problematic; the specific statements within them flagged as needing citations are the problems. The instructions you were left are in fact quite clear and to the point: Do not delete "citation needed" and other maintenance templates without resolving the issues they've flagged. Whether you aesthetically like the appearance of citation-needed tags is of no relevance.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is not for bickering, so are you drawing a reasonable conclusion to this? are you prepared to find a solution the removal and reasons raised? or are you happy to go on WP:WL (para 3) as you are, even suggesting I go off WP. My position is also taken up elsewhere on WP because the aim is the same and my edits in this case are fair enough when an article is being littered with item by item cite tags. Please don't tell me they were your cite tags. In that case, please read the nutshell box at that link.Manytexts (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Those are simply two straw man arguments. I did not suggest you leave Wikipedia, I suggested you not use it for personally antagonistic flaming; and I made no such WP:OWNish argument. I very clearly spelled out why those citation-needed tags are there, and you've been linked, by {{uw-tdel1}}, to material on why not to delete them, and then had this all re-explained to you personally in detail. I note that you've not addressed any of that substantively, but simply dodged it with these extraneous, bogus arguments. If you persist in pretending you cannot understand why specific unsourced facts, interwoven with sourced ones, are tagged as needing citations, and that a section- or article-level citation dispute/cleanup tag cannot flag these problems with sufficient specificity, then see WP:IDHT. If you're just mad because I templated you, sorry, but I'm a firm believer in WP:TTR, in particular #Uncivil reactions. You've been around long enough to understand all of this already. Finally, given the amount of unilateral "cleanup" you do, much of it more significant than simple gnoming, but with only rather rare efforts on your part to establish consensus for such changes first, you cannot reasonably expect to never get reverted and never receive detailed objections. I know, because I prefer a similar WP:BOLD editing style myself. Some pushback, here and there, from people who think that you're making some mistakes simply comes with the territory. Suck it up. No one's demonizing you or hounding you. You've just picked a thankless wikijob. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You are behaving like a bully. Are you stalking me? Your prose is full of catastrophic terms and imperative mood. Who gave you the job of being my critic? You know nothing about me. Stop dogging me, and stop flaming right now. Thank you. Manytexts (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Grigori Rasputin 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trailanga may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • carefree as a child".<ref name="sm_219"/> He was reportedly seen swimming or floating on the river [[Ganges for hours. He talked very little and at times not at all. A large number of people became

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My book: Hindu Yoga & Cosmology[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Bennett (occultist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abramelin operation. 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) 09:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Degueldre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Legion. 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) 09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inlay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navaho. 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, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ken Short, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Andrews Cathedral. 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) 10:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)