Jump to content

User talk:Cambial Yellowing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m sp
Tag: Reverted
Line 128: Line 128:
I've started a new discussion on genre on the talk page, i suggest we take it there and leave it blank in the meantime before going forward, best to reach a consensus. Do you agree? [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 18:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I've started a new discussion on genre on the talk page, i suggest we take it there and leave it blank in the meantime before going forward, best to reach a consensus. Do you agree? [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 18:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
:{{yo|Andrzejbanas}} No. [[WP:NOCON|Here's why.]] <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]][[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b>]]</span> 18:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
:{{yo|Andrzejbanas}} No. [[WP:NOCON|Here's why.]] <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]][[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b>]]</span> 18:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
::I feel s if you are just saying "no i'll add what I like and revert what had been consensus." also, others left the conversation and I assumed their silence as consensus, which is a very normal procedure on wikipedia. If you are unwilling to discuss, I'll assume consensus that you do not want to take this further and revert it to back how it was. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 18:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:27, 28 June 2021


Hi, Cambial Yellowing! Thanks for ensuring that articles are supported by reliable sources. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles.

If you would like to participate, please visit WikiProject Reliability for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! — Newslinger talk 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name

hey, how do you do that to your name? I've also seen others with colourful or artistic name designs but I have no idea how it's done. Thanks man Nate Hooper (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Cambial Yellowing! You created a thread called User talk at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aphex Twin

Hi, you’ve made some very helpful changes to the lead, but your insistence on including a tiny label that is rarely (if ever) mentioned in overviews of James's career (and not even naming it, implicitly admitting that it’s not significant enough to mention!) is inane. He recorded for several other labels during that time too, and you’ve not bothered to mention those—rightly, because it’d be silly. Include those details in the article body. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Gentlecollapse6 we differ on this. Fine. Your presumption of ownership, however, is not appropriate, and neither is pretending to be making accusations of edit warring while in fact actively instigating an edit war yourself. Do not do this again. The appropriate place to discuss content disputes is generally the article talk page. It will be helpful in discussion if you refrain from seeking to dictate what is "compromise". I.e. in this case: I think a brief mention of how artist emerged from free party scene and gained fame/recognition is at least as notable as an "inane" recounting of which aliases he was recording under in which years, when he signed to Warp etc, and hence should be included in the lead. You do not. Not including it is not compromise. I suggest you respond on the article talk page. Cambial Yellowing 01:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aphex Twin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Your fight for unbiased distribution of references is most valuable for en.wikipedia.org FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Les Bonbons (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compilation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-described?

I'm not going to pursue the Charity v Think-tank argument but are you sure that they really describe themselves as a think-tank? I haven't looked but it is a very tabloidish phrase so best you check as you wrote it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As to the sentence, John Maynard Friedman, I think it is now clunky, and prefer simply "charity" given that that is what it is precisely defined as in law and in British English. I did not revert in order to accommodate the concerns you expressed in your edit summary. Cambial foliage❧ 12:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and I'm not arguing because technically you are correct. I just worry that the rest of the world understands the word 'charity' as on organisation that feeds the hungry and tends the sick. (Think of the Sally Anny commenting on the Offside Rule). I won't pursue it but shan't be surprised if someone else does. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
put it back to just 'charity' then, as it is just too clunky as is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wiki markup in original source?

I'm surprised by this edit, which restores the rather unsightly [[John F. Kennedy] construction. I take it the actual source contains a reference to Kennedy which doesn't use his name? Eelworm (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a direct quote hence why it sits in the quote parameter. I explained the reason in the subsequent edit. Cambial foliage❧ 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second edit makes perfect sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Eelworm (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 15:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Universal Indicator Red for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Universal Indicator Red is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Indicator Red until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Lennart97 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senedd.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit summary

Lol isento (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Sources

Please see United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 ChefBear01 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC) ChefBear01 (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quique

I've started a new discussion on genre on the talk page, i suggest we take it there and leave it blank in the meantime before going forward, best to reach a consensus. Do you agree? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: No. Here's why. Cambial foliage❧ 18:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel s if you are just saying "no i'll add what I like and revert what had been consensus." also, others left the conversation and I assumed their silence as consensus, which is a very normal procedure on wikipedia. If you are unwilling to discuss, I'll assume consensus that you do not want to take this further and revert it to back how it was. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]