User talk:Rsquire3

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

Welcome to Wikipedia from Yk Yk Yk[edit]

Hi, Rsquire3. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

This edit was a lot more wordy. The editor's rationale for changing "Mainline denominations" to "Contemporary mainline churches" was not a good one, since the word denomination does mean an organized religious body. Denomination and "church" roughly equate, but some denominations, like the American Baptist Churches, are not technically speaking a single "church". Just wanted to let you know since it seemed that my revert was so egregious to you. Ltwin (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Agrippa I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King of the Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tone of comments[edit]

It's good of you to make use of edit summaries to provide a thorough explanation of the changes you are making to articles. However, Wikipedia's principles of civility and good Wikiquette would counsel against immediately leaping to insulting characterizations, such as "childishly ungrammatical," "risibly bad," "third[-]grade . . . mistake," and "I love how total morons think they can write for Wikipedia!" Wikipedia encourages all interested users to contribute; having English as a first language, to say nothing of university-level writing ability, is no prerequisite. Uncivil comments needlessly lower the tone of the project and can even have the effect of biting newcomers and driving editors away. This especially bears pointing out in contexts where you are wrong, such as in this edit (standard British grammar treats as plural the names of bands, corporations, etc.), these edits ("imposition" is the standard word for this part of the rite), and this edit (wrong on both counts: under the standard sequence of tenses of English grammar, "he is recorded as having been" is correct; and you have changed "Bunyan" to "Bunya," making it appear as though the spelling of his name in the baptismal register was different).

I hope you will keep these things in mind in the future as you continue to improve the encyclopedia. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited English language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Supper of the Lord[edit]

Supper of the Lord is indeed a Christian phrase as a little googling will tell you. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Further evidence that the Supper of the Lord has been used by Christians:
Salvart, Jean François (1842). The harmony of Protestant confessions [by J.F. Salvart]. Tr. [from Harmonia confessionum fidei, orthodoxarum & reformatarum Ecclesiarum]. London: John F. Shaw. 
submitted by drs (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down in your edit summaries[edit]

Hello, Rsquire3, 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 talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.

About your edit summaries:

"the author not knowing how to use a semi-colon. Hilarious! Who are these people who write these articles?) "
"(Total loss of punctuation. Amazing!)"

reflect your frustration with low quality of wikipedia, which is understandable. However please keep in mind that wikipedia is written by people with different background and free of charge. What is in fact hilarious and amazing that the project survived for 10+ years and does have a solird record of success (together with drawbacks, of course). Whatever the project accomplished is the result of cooperation: some people know facts, while other peole know how to use semi-colons. The latter ones are the ones who bring atricles to very good level.

Your contibutions are very important and the community is grateful for them. However the spirit of cooperation requires a more tolerant attitude to other people's mistakes. Please take your time and review the "five pillars of Wikipedia" linked above, especially the section about mutual respect.

Once again, thank you for your efforts in making wikipedia better. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I can see it has been mentioned before, but can you please stop insulting other editors in your edit summary? The reasons why have been mentioned previously, and continuing to do so has no benefit at all. Thanks BulbaThor (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please make an attempt to modify your edit summaries[edit]

You've received enough advice. Your use of snark in edit summaries is counterproductive. Find another way to summarize your edits. Tiderolls 23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

...or better still don't make them at all, as all those I've seen from you at Middle Ages have been quite simply risible. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You've convinced me...[edit]

...that you will not stop your oblique abuse via edit summary. Take some time to acquaint yourself with this project's goal of maintaining a collegial editing environment. Tiderolls 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

manmade[edit]

If "manmade isn't a word", then why is it in my The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful[edit]

You were doing so well upon your return. Clearly you have the capacity for neutral comment. Concentrate on developing that capacity. Tiderolls 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continuing to write insulting edit summaries about trivial grammatical mistakes. It's not as if your own editing is beyond reproach [1][2]. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SpinningSpark 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Aug 2012[edit]

I feel some of your recent edit summaries are rather belittling, epecally when they relate to such trivial grammatical errors.

Correct the articles my all means, but could you not make constructive and encouraging comments instead?

Also, the large block you removed from the Neil Armstrong article, would it have not be more useful to place it were is should go (and flow), rather then just delete it on mass? - or better still discus it's placement on the talk page?

Who is this comment from? I don't think personal messages like this should go unsigned.

Hi, Rsquire. You can check the revision history for any talk page to find the poster of unsigned messages. The message above was left by Simuliid (talk · contribs). Signing posts is always a good idea but is not required by policy. Sometimes folks forget, as you did in your inquiry. I will take this opportunity to disagree with Simuliid; it's my opinion that your recent edit summaries have been very neutral. Regards Tiderolls 15:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Doctor of the Church[edit]

Hi,

My reversion of your edits is mostly a matter of my own taste, though you had left a loose end with "Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People provides is the source on England in the early Middle Ages." The 'standard' spelling of canonise is even more complicated than I realized as an American, but cannot really be called a misspelling. Sparafucil (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cotton Bowl Classic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On Christian ethics[edit]

There's nothing wrong with trying to make things clearer in an article, but your addition makes explicit what can be inferred and is thus unnecessary, and it breaks the impartial and encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia tries to maintain. See editorializing and presumptuous language. --Aozf05 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin[edit]

Hi Rsquire, regarding this edit, I completely understand that the punctuation is incorrect, but direct quotes from sources must be preserved exactly. Please do not change again. Thanks!

Bach[edit]

I wanted to say something about the tone of your edit summaries but see that others did it before me. Instead of this lecture, you might have said "comma, for clarity", - for politeness. (I didn't write the passage, nor did I read it in a long time.) Every user is every other's "proofreader" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The writing of sarcastic edit summaries on grammatically correct English[edit]

  • A misplaced comma is surely not as problematic as a full-stop inserted in the middle of a sentence.
  • When changing the tense of a verb in a sentence where there are two verbs governed by the same subject, it is recommended that both verbs are changed.

Compare:

  1. Previous: "...in the introduction to the Lives he attributes various architectural features to "the Goths" whom he holds responsible for destroying the ancient buildings..."
  2. Yours: "...in the introduction to the Lives he attributes various architectural features to "the Goths." whom he held responsible for destroying the buildings of ancient Rome..."

When referencing a scholarly work, it is acceptable (and in some contexts customary) to refer to the author's processes in the present tense e.g. "Vasari says that this, Vasari writes this, Vasari states this and Vasari holds this opinion." "Anonimo, on the other hand, gives an entirely different version and explains the context."

Happy editing!

Amandajm (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable VisualEditor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nanking Massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (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) 09:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PS General Slocum 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:
  • argue he was attempting to prevent the fire from spreading to riverside buildings and oil tanks) Flammable paint also helped the fire spread out of control.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Little Germany, Manhattan[edit]

Your replacement wording:

he was convicted only of lack of safety-preparedness, for which he was sentenced to ten years in prison

does not have the same meaning as the original wording:

one of the only things he was ever punished for was lack of safety-preparedness, which was sufficient for him to receive a ten-year prison sentence

does it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Kuznets, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Belarusian and American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem[edit]

You didn't read the link I provided in my edit summary, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. You need to read it and comply with it. Compliance is mandatory. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that the Jerusalem article is closely watched. It is the subject of more than one WP:Arbcom decision. Though it seems you are mainly interested in style improvements, it would be best for you to use the talk page for any changes you have in mind. I'm leaving you the official I/P notice so that you are aware. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem is under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPIA[edit]

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

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

11th warning: insulting edit summaries[edit]

With this edit you resumed insulting others in edit summaries and proved that you are not getting the point, despite ten previous warnings and two previous blocks. You are also exhibiting a tendency to edit war rather than discuss; the last time you used any talk page it was October 15, 2013. Please re-read WP:CIVIL and adhere to the Wikipedia policies on user conduct and collegial editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

12th warning: insulting edit summaries[edit]

Be informed that with this edit and this one, your ongoing refusal to abide by WP:CIVIL is noticed once again. Insults, far from being a sign of erudition, are instead the behavior of a child. Willful disregard of others reflects poorly only on the practitioner. It's all been said to you before, and twice has resulted in disciplinary action. This history could not escape the notice of a dufus. It did not escape you either, as you are clearly able to behave otherwise. You have no excuse. Your attitude is reprehensible. You have previously been asked politely to cease. But now it is appropriate to demand it. Stop now. It's WP policy, and that policy is there for good reason. That too is not beyond your comprehension. Evensteven (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)