User talk:200.104.240.11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:09, 10 November 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (200.104.240.11) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! SummerPhD (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Prior to leaving this comment, I have made 55 edits from this IP address. You are obviously aware that for 53 of those, I left an edit summary. You are further aware that over many years I have left edit summaries on virtually every single edit I've ever made. Your absurdly patronising message can only have been intended as a provocation. As it happens, one of the two for which I did not leave a summary was the addition of a single character, a space [1]. The other one was the removal of a peacock word, which I had done previously and explained clearly [2] and which you had restored without explanation.[3]

As for your latest campaign to undo my work ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), I note that you previously undid all these edits without explaining why in the edit summary. Now, at least, you've attempted to come up with a post hoc justification. However, it is not a reasonable one. The word "allision" is obsolete in normal usage, and is generally used only in maritime contexts. If you look at google ngrams, you can see that the word "collision" appears several thousand times more frequently in a representative corpus than "allision" does. Looking at examples of where it appears, at least a quarter of them appear to be misspellings of Allison, and the rest are from specialist literature. Edit warring to force the inclusion of a word which is not in general use does not seem to be productive behaviour.

Your entirely unnecessary template about edit summaries was a blatant attempt to provoke me. Yet another tranche of needless reverts of my work, in that light, also appears to have been done solely to provoke. To see you attacking me once again within 14 hours of my first edit from this IP exceeds my lowest expectations.

I hope that User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir would like to express their opinions about this matter. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'm making dinner, the girls are chatting me up, and I'm really really really hungry and I'm all out of glucose tablets. I promise I'll check back in with the appropriate knowledge of allision and collision and collusion. 23:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Allision is "literary and rare", according to the OED, though it cites one recent instance from 2004: "Ginger and her john apparently embraced, clothes rustling, the allision of their shoes on the floorboards." Drmies (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhD, you know perfectly well who you were reverting. The edit summary box was needless, as anyone can see who looks at this IP's edit history. The OED agrees that "allision" is not in common parlance, and I don't see why we should use it in a general-audience encyclopedia; it's specific maritime usage is a. not appropriate for us and b. not verified in Wiktionary. The best thing you can do, for all of us, is to stay away from this editor and their edits. IP, next time please don't hit "undo" but just redo the edit. It's more work, but it avoids needless needling. I have restored all the above edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know who it is. I didn't say otherwise.

The "allision" issue is mentioned in several hidden comments removed by the IP without explanation.[13][14][15] It is my feeling that edits contrary to hidden comments deserve -- at the very least -- an edit summary explaining why.

(Yes, I have reverted edits from this user in the past without explanation when those edits were made in defiance of a block. Yes, "without further explanation". Let it go.) The revisions being discussed here were explained in edit summaries. This is not edit warring in any sense: My original reverts (of the block evasion) without explanation were valid, the IP reverted without explanation, I undid those reverts with explanatory edit summaries and requested discussion. (Yes, the IP did make an edit without a summary involving one space. No one complained about that edit and it has nothing to do with the present discussion.)

My research did not find any indication that the word was in any way archaic. Previously, I had run across a somewhat similar situation with "accident" vs. "incident". (Apparently, in aviation a terrorist bombing is an "incident" if no one dies, an "accident" if there were deaths. We worked it out, agreeing the particular sentence was not needed and, if restored, should be reworded to avoid the confusion.[16]) Currently, Wikipedia says a collision involves "two or more moving bodies". Wiktionary has allide: "(nautical) To impact a stationary object", consistent with the hidden comments removed without explanation.

I do not see a problem with explaining bolide ("a term related to meteors and meteorites. There is no consensus on the definition of a bolide, so there are specific definitions used by several groups and fields.").[17] Heck, I'd go one step further and replace it with "fireball", but that's me. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see a problem with explaining "bolide" and have reverted. Yes, they removed hidden comments, but they did supply edit summaries, so I see no problem with that: in my opinion the hidden comments were...exaggerated. I saw that one of those comments had a link to Merriam Webster, but that's not available to me and I place more stock in the OED anyway--certainly more than in Wiktionary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking in after getting up; getting ready for work shortly. Cursory research shows that allision is used in maritime law to maintain the distinction. I see Drmies has checked the edits and re-reverted in a number of cases, but if it matters, folks from WikiProject Ships will probably be back to change it again. I'd urge you to let it go if they do, although we could probably do with an article section somewhere explaining the usage. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hidden comments removed by the IP without explanation...It is my feeling that edits contrary to hidden comments deserve -- at the very least -- an edit summary explaining why. You are fully aware that I left edit summaries for all of those edits. You specifically mention three articles where you dishonestly claim that I left no explanation, but you posted diffs that were not of my edits. Here are the edits: rm jargon,rm nautical jargon. it is not the correct term if you're writing an encyclopaedia for general readership. It's just pretentious in that case., "correct" for nautical documents maybe. For an english language encyclopaedia, it is not the correct term.

If your research didn't find any indication that the word was archaic, I think that suggests that you didn't do any research at all. Or perhaps your google search results are wildly different to mine, which give Merriam Webster as the very first result; "obsolete" is the very first word of that result.

User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, thank you for your input. I note that SummerPhD hasn't acknowledged that they set out to provoke me but I see no other possible explanation for their behaviour.

Regarding bolide, to me it would be preferable to use one term - I originally thought bolide with a link to the article was certainly sufficient, but I think meteor would probably be best. bolide ("fireball") just looks weird. The quotes make it unclear what meaning is intended by fireball, and I suspect many readers would not suspect that a meteor is actually what is being discussed. As for "allision", if people should restore it, I'd argue that this would be unwise, as it's simply not a word that most general readers have ever come across and there is a clear and unambiguous normal word that does the job. But let's see if anyone does object to the recent changes. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Yes, your edits are going to be fairly heavily scrutinized for a while. You cannot reasonably expect otherwise. If reverting several of your edits were an attempt to provoke you, your 20 or so edits starting at 12:44, November 6, 2014 would be you provoking me. I don't think it was, YMMV.

Assume good faith does not mean ignore bad faith. Your ridiculous message about edit summaries was an act of clear bad faith. My edits do not need any more or less scrutiny than anyone else's. Your reverts of my edits were a clear attempt at provocation. Undoing your destructive edits cannot possibly be considered to be provocation.

Your first search result seems to be this. Yes, the first definition is obsolete. The second definition, "the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary —distinguished from collision", is what we are discussing. When I said I researched it, a good faith assumption would be that I researched it. That you found something different (apparently ignoring the Wikipedia and Wiktionary results above) does not justify an assumption of bad faith.

No, it's your repeated acts of bad faith that justify the assumption of bad faith.

You did revert several edits without explanatory edit summaries. I did not provide links intending to show them as I thought they were obvious. Most of your 20 or so edits starting with 12:44, November 6, 2014 give the automated summary "‎(Undid revision ######### by SummerPhD (talk))", which does not explain what you are changing or why. In addition to other edits without summaries, including several with links to the relevant definition on Wiktionary, you made these edits removing explanations for keeping "allision":[18][19][20][21].

I had explained those edits when I originally made them, and you reverted them without bothering to explain why. Explaining again would have been redundant, and you of all people certainly knew the reason that I made them. Reverting without explanation and then complaining when I do the same is just another act of bad faith.

Yes, I disagreed with several of your edits. Editors will disagree. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, sometimes it's a matter of opinion (your opinion might or might not "win"). When someone disagrees with you, you can let it go. You can discuss the issue. ~~You can assume bad faith, fight to defend your position escalate into edit warring and personal attacks.~~ - SummerPhD (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to "bolide", but here's one source for the careful distinction in maritime law between allision and collision. However, it is an extremely recondite word, yes. Thus, I think we either need a section in an article on marine accidents or maritime law to which we can make an explanatory link whenever the word comes up, or a standard informational note; I'd prefer the first. Now I must pack up the laptop, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief section at Collision#Allision, with a redirect from Allision. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, thank you! I'm going to make use of that, after first adding at least one legal ref. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm home and have a little time ... There's another JSTOR footnote defining the term on p. 823 here (identical passage also on p. 220 of this one. There are further extremely legal uses, such as p. 381 of this, which do not define the term in a footnote. They all seem to be from the US. If it were not for the reference to the Admiralty in that first JSTOR reference, I would suspect this is a US law term, i.e., yet another WP:ENGVAR issue. However, p. 1999 of this legal item is interesting enough to quote:

allision ( ). When a moving vessel runs into another not under way, that is technically called an "allision," to be distinguished from "collision" which properly involves vessels which are both under way. The distinction is almost totally unimportant, and the word " allision " is hardly ever seen today (if indeed it ever was).

"Photos Demonstrate Damage to MSC Magnifica After Allision in Piraeus" is an entry in a legal blog/newsletter that we cite at MSC Magnifica. "National Transportation Safety Board Marine Accident Brief: Allision of the Dale A. Heller Tow with Marseilles Dam" is cited at Marseilles Lock and Dam and "NTSB Allision of Bahamas‐Registered Tankship M/T Axel Spirit with Ambrose Light Entrance to New York Harbor November 3, 2007" is cited at Ambrose Light, so we know the US National Transportation Safety Board uses the term. I wonder where to park the explanation to be linked to. I do think that's the solution here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am very surprised to see that you are restoring this term to articles, Yngvadottir. Given that you found a source saying that the distinction is "almost totally unimportant", and that the word is "hardly ever seen today (if indeed it ever was)", I can't understand at all why you'd want to use it in an article. Google ngrams show that its use is negligible compared to collision [22]. To me it seems that, given the choice between a word that is only ever used in highly specialised contexts and that the vast majority of people do not know, and a word that is commonly understood and introduces no ambiguity or uncertainty if used, well, there is no choice really. What benefit do you see in using the word? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What clinched it for me is that the NTSB uses it in report titles. I still suspect ENGVAR - that is, that it's alive and well in American legal usage but not British - Drmies implies it's not in the OED, but it could equally well have been revived in this age of cruise ship accidents. (It's hard to prove a negative.) I found that one lawyer's statement very interesting from that point of view, but it's labelled posthumous and I don't know when it was actually written or the nationality of the author. Since I did find it in use in legal analyses, official accident reports, and economics analyses, I believe elucidating it falls within our mission, but you'll notice I often piped it to "hit" or "crash" (using a word found in one of the news reports when I could; and on at least one article I went hunting for sources on the event). I didn't use the verb "impacted" for stylistic reasons, and I eliminated the verb "allided". So there's my reasoning. Thank you all for increasing my main space edit count this month, and I also fixed things like italicisation in the title on several of the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from "alive and well" in any usage. This is not a case of variations of English - while less rare in US English, it's still vanishingly rare. Have a look at the google ngrams: it indicates that in US English, the word occurs roughly once in every 3 million words in the corpus, while in British English it's every 12 million words. To put that in context, some words I found that are significantly more widely used that "allision" include "betwixt", "thither" and "flibbertigibbet", while "bumbershoot" and "taradiddle" come out about equal in usage. I do not believe it's useful to the reader to use highly specialised maritime legal jargon, when there is a perfectly accurate normal English word that can be used instead. I also think it's extremely confusing to link the word as you have done. For example:

On Montanan's next trip, the ship crashed into a wharf in Los Angeles Harbor

When seeing that the words "crashed into" are a link, my expectation would be that the link is to an article about that crash specifically. A link to a dictionary definition of an word that is obsolete in normal use is very surprising. The MOS says "Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context", and I have a hard time seeing how that one is relevant or helpful. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, and I do object to the Wiktionary links that were there before, and the use of the verb. But we've been citing sources that use the term. So I believe we have to explain it; and the alternative would be an explanatory note, either in the text or footnoted. Going to ping Drmies again here and - work permitting - I'll start a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships asking about it and referring back here. I urge you to post there. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have commented there.200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, though from the above it looks like I'm expected to — but I just noticed the edits you made today and came here to thank you for them. You do good work. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much. It's very kind of you to say so and I appreciate it. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lágrimas Negras (album) 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:

heading back to his home in Stockholm a few weeks before his death. He had been suffering from [[Alzheimer's disease].<ref>[http://www.eltiempo.com/gente/ARTICULO-WEB-NEW_NOTA_INTERIOR-12708078.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Meyer

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Dina Meyer, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. If you have a problem on how the page is written, then please explain it in the article talk page. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are certainly aware, it was not a test edit. I made the change with a clear edit summary, and you have reverted it three times in less than 24 hours, without bothering to explain why. I see that you even deleted my request for an explanation [23]. Coming here and leaving an inappropriate message about test edits was plainly not intended to be productive.

Perhaps User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir would like to comment on this, the fifth case in less than two days of someone reverting my work for no reason. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reinstated with full edit summary (I tend to prolix edit summaries anyway), talk page section opened (you may want to hunt up sources on whether she is indeed best known for that role, IP - someone should), and note left for the editor, who may not have been aware (a) that you were the same person who originally labelled it "pov" (b) that you are no longer block evading. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth time in three days...

I am sure you're getting very bored of this already, User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir. Yet again someone is reverting my work for no reason. Does it really surprise anyone that this kind of thing makes me really angry? The latest: [24]. I hope you'd like to comment on it. Thanks for your time. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Came home, woke up slightly, edited there. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more

[25] and [26]. First one, revert without explanation two minutes after my clearly explained edit. Second one is the second unexplained revert by the same user, and there was an intermediate unexplained revert by an IP as well. User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, your input is very much appreciated as always. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping didn't work for some reason, and I have to leave for work very soon. But I note your re-revert was top in both articles; I added a subsequent edit to each, may drop a note to the editors tomorrow. The section below is concerning, as someone else has said underneath it. I'll look into the specifics you list when I have time (possibly on work break), but consider removing it as a gesture of good faith. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I waited a while and then saw no reason not to re-revert. The constant reverting of simple edits for no reason at all is as infuriating as ever and I would certainly like to know why these people do it. One of them, in this case, has made less than 200 edits, so that they are starting out as an editor with pointless reverts is very concerning.

I moved the section that you were concerned about. I am concerned about the behaviour of an editor who is stalking and provoking and showing no signs of stopping, though they were already warned once. I would like it to stop. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict with the person removing the list of diffs below; I'll look at the rest of them regardless.) Thanks for that gesture; I appreciate it. I'm afraid I am not very good at dispute resolution. I recognise your anger and have spoken to another editor, as you may have noticed from my contributions (which are of course open to inspection; for one thing, I appreciate those who fix my typonese). And I just weighed in on the article talk page concerning "best known for". I do think you should recognise that's a contentious issue, regardless of the fact I mostly agree with you. (And I have a suspicion that our requirement that new pages demonstrate notability in the first couple of lines to avoid being nominated for speedy deletion leads to that kind of quick formulation. "Why shouldn't this article be speedy deleted for no credible claim of significance - erm, she's known for playing X in Y!!!") Don't assume everybody is always going to agree with you. After all, I'm not entirely in agreement with you on avoiding specialist jargon - note that I wrote Sonargöltr '-) I don't know why some editors are so quick to revert, or not to provide an edit summary when they do so, but Summer is right that your having been labelled a vandal is one factor in it. And there are Wikipedians who disapprove of unregistered editing, which is why I have the opposite userbox on my userpage. Realpolitik. Hopefully as word spreads that you are unblocked, things will get better. BTW Drmies is evidently at a professional convention this weekend, but I'm pinging him here in case the earlier one didn't work for him either. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were still reviewing the list of diffs. In any case, they're in the history. Thanks 200.104.240.11 for removing the other list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I see you're now in conversation with the editor who reverted you on the computer article that I felt entirely unequipped to tackle, just as we've both spoken to the editor who, it has been suggested, hasn't internalised the distinction between block evasion and vandalism. One of the others looks like somebody getting accidentally logged out; one is indeed a weird edit summary; but for the most part your change has now stuck. I reiterate that Wikipedia is a hurly burly where people do indeed sometimes revert for bad reasons, or based on misunderstandings. Onward, with hope. I note you are also talking to Summer both on her talk page and at the "best known for" discussion. I believe the latter is a good test case to talk about the issue - as I said there, I am unfamiliar with her work, and I hadn't realised she was dead. Some good airing of the issue going on there, and your first post to Summer was to the point and a better idea than amassing diffs here. However ... You've gone into attack territory. Please back out of it. You've made your points, and Summer does have a right to follow your edits. Your applying adjectives to her has led to her rehashing your history from the point of view of the LTA page. That's not going to lead anywhere good. Now that you're unblocked, I very much want you to remain unblocked (obviously), and to amass a body of good edits to replace that old reputation you acquired. People's memories tend to be short; the reputation she alludes to will go away a lot faster if you can keep from getting into personalised arguments that lead to mentions of it. As I say, I am not great at dispute resolution, and I know you are working hard at this - and taking the time to explain on the article talk page as well as at the WikiProject. I actually have also seen her making fewer allusions to your past, also. Please back away from the attacks. Your protest has been registered. (And again, thank you both for your own copyediting and tweaks to articles and for the copyediting opportunities I get following you around.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations with reasonable people are usually positive experiences. The user who made the unexplained revert at Zend engine apologised for doing so and the article is better than it was. SummerPhD, on the other hand, is harassing me and has been doing so since I started editing on this IP. People can follow my edits as much as they like, but leaving offensive messages, encouraging others to make false accusations against me, and doing their best to derail sensible discussions is not acceptable. Someone asked them to back off and they have not done so. I do not believe I have attacked them in return. That said, expecting me to passively allow them to continue their campaign of harassment is not realistic. I wait to see if anyone will take any serious steps to stop their disruptive behaviour, and in the meantime, I'll continue arguing my case robustly on the two talk pages where they are being tiresomely argumentative. Thanks for your time and advice. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think this is anything other than someone being deliberately obtuse and provocative? They need to be told that they are behaving inappropriately. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to provide me with some distraction from the attacks on me, maybe you could create the articles that exist on Spanish wikipedia but not here, that appear in Festina affair, and I'll translate them. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one actually, thought there were more. Well anyway, I can do it if you or someone else creates it. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to bow out of that venture since I don't officially know Spanish. On the other hand Spanish is a very easy language :-) Let's see what things look like tomorrow, when my weekend finally starts. (On the other hand if you really want a distraction right now, look through the list of articles on my user page and see if you can find anything that needs changing. Just please don't insert an infobox.) The diff you link to is someone falling on their face trying to be clever. I will drop a note to her, ok. But she is right, you will attract scrutiny for a while; and that project talk discussion demonstrates that there's disagreement on the editorial issue. It's not just bloodymindedness. My apologies for being so indecisive, and thanks for listening and for your obvious efforts to be civil. You did step back, as I asked; additional thanks for that. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe I'll create the article here and then ask you to move it to the appropriate place when I'm done. Will be glad to have a look at the list on your user page. For now, going away for a short while. Thanks again. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:SummerPhD that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :::::::I'm tempted to bow out of that venture since I don't officially know Spanish. On the other hand Spanish is a very easy language :-) Let's see what things look like tomorrow, when my weekend finally starts. (On the other hand if you really want a distraction right now, look through the list of articles on my user page and see if you can find anything that needs changing. Just please don't insert an infobox.) The diff you link to is someone falling on their face trying to be clever. I will drop a note to her, ok. But she is right, you will attract scrutiny for a while; and that project talk discussion demonstrates that there's disagreement on the editorial issue. It's not just bloodymindedness. My apologies for being so indecisive, and thanks for listening and for your obvious efforts to be civil. You did step back, as I asked; additional thanks for that. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 ::::::::Well maybe I'll create the article here and then ask you to move it to the appropriate place when I'm done.  Will be glad to have a look at the list on your user page.  For now, going away for a short while.  Thanks again.  [[Special:Contributions/200.104.240.11|200.104.240.11]] ([[User talk:200.104.240.11#top|talk]]) 20:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
+== November 2014 ==
+[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:SummerPhD|SummerPhD]]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page [[:User talk:SummerPhD]] that didn't seem very [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]], so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:SummerPhD|my talk page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 03:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
+:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->