Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Explanation and agreement? An explanation for that particular tag is not required. One look at the article and it's obvious something isn't right. The formatting is horrid. --Jennica✿ / talk08:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of that. When I'm tagging it, it doesn't prompt me for a reason. To me, all the articles I marked are glaringly obvious. I already fixed 50 or so articles from the same editor using this horrid formatting. --Jennica✿ / talk08:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To you, it may be obvious, but not necessarily to other editors. The changes to the text which you have now made are essentially trivial, in my view - I have no opinion on whether they make the article better or worse, but they certainly did not justify an unexplained tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If it is a problem with one editor's work, have you raised the issue directly with that editor (not me)? That would surely be a preferable approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already raised it with the editor. I have nothing against you. I have put a statement on each talk page I added the tag to. What changes to the text are you referring to? --Jennica✿ / talk08:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant changes to the formatting. I see you've raised it with the other editor - thanks. Please bear in mind that many editors are much more concerned with article content than with formatting, and where there are formatting issues they often need more explanation than simply adding a tag at the top of an article - or describing another editor's good faith work as "horrid", which is simply your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sad part about it. Their edits are pretty good but their formatting is verging on disruptive, in my opinion. Specifically on Black & White Records and here. Maybe I care too much. It is quite unconventional though.. and maybe it's just my opinion. --Jennica✿ / talk08:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is routinely formatting in such a way that it creates problems for other users, such as accessibility, or is in contravention of a generally accepted MOS guideline, they should be told, and the issue explained to them. But a great deal of unconventional formatting simply arises from either an editor's ignorance of guidance, or from personal taste. In those cases, it is of no help to anyone - and indeed can itself be seen as disruptive - if tags are added to articles using words like "horrid" without providing some form of explanation of what the problem is. In the long run, it's much more important to ensure that good faith editors like that remain on the project, adding accurate (and sourced) information, than pissing them off by tagging articles to which they have contributed greatly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram of the divisions of the UK
Can you please explain why the diagram is unnecessary and unhelpful?
I posted it on the talk page for a while to see what other people thought of it. We discussed it and I corrected some mistakes and improved it. After waiting a bit more I thought no one else had found anything else wrong with it, so I decided to edit the article to add it.
The whole reason I created the diagram was that I had trouble understanding how the UK is divided and the different levels of government, and wanted something visual to help understand it better without having to read all the related articles.
GarmTýrfingsson (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The administrative geography of the UK is extremely complicated, which is why diagrams tend to be avoided, and why an over-simplified diagram is misleading. I had missed the discussion taking place - but, allowing only a week or two over the Christmas and new year period is really not enough time to achieve a meaningful consensus. In any case, your diagram verges on original research. I'm happy to continue discussions on the article talk page or on a wider forum page (but not this talk page). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Christmas period was not the best time to discuss anything, but because after adding the new topic some people answered right away, and then no one else said anything for a while I assumed it would stay that way and that no one else was bothered. I see I was wrong, and that edits on articles are checked much more than talk pages. Can you please elaborate about the original research and the oversimplification? (On the talk page, i won't write here anymore) I took all the information from wikipedia articles, which have their own sources and no original research I suppose. Also if something like this is accepted why not something more elaborate? England administrative divisions since 2009GarmTýrfingsson (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one of the problems with your diagram is that it suggests that administrative functions are carried out at the regional level in England - which they are not, though all the other entities shown do have a functional role. So, the regions in England need to be shown differently - unlike the other entities shown, they are divisions that are now used purely for statistical purposes. Another complication is the increasing use of joint arrangements for some administrative functions. It's never a good idea to use Wikipedia articles as sources. But, I'll continue discussion on the article talk page rather than here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GHmyrtle
I am new to this. I was Likki's husband. I have kept what happened to Likki a secret for decades. I felt in the spirit of accurate history her story should be told. How can I edit and have my statement available.
@Hiddenstory: - Thanks for contacting me in this way. The best way forward, I think, would be for you to explain on her article talk page - here - what information you think should be changed or added to the article. However... Wikipedia essentially exists to summarise material that has already been published in reliable sources - such as books, magazines, reputable newspapers and reputable websites. If the material has not already been published - even if it is material that you know to be true - it will (or at least should) not be published here. Most experienced editors will remove unsourced material on sight, especially if it is about someone who is (or may be) alive - per our policy on biographies of living people. So, the best way forward may, in fact, be for you to ensure that whatever you think should be included is first published elsewhere. I'm sure there are ISB fan sites that would love to hear from you - and, from there, what you write could well find its way into other publications. Of course, that may take some time. But, as I said, if there are factual errors that need to be corrected in the article about Likki, I suggest that you explain what they are, on the article talk page. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC) (ISB fan from way back in the 1960s!)[reply]
I'm back (again) with another obscure blues Johnny (more probably a Willy) from back when. The draft article is in my sandbox. Does BARE cover him at all ?
[1]. But the frozen Rome fountain "gives no additional encyclopedic information", too. These photo is chosen, maybe, just because it more "european" that from Russia. English Wikipedia "means not anti-Russian". The photo depicts the real fact that the cold wave was in Eastern Europe, too. Where do you (or anybody) can find the photos which really related to article? --Brateevsky(talk to me)20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People in those areas (I'm not) will have to go out and take photographs that show the coldness of the weather. A photograph of a temperature display doesn't really add anything of interest, in my view (and apparently that of other editors). The photo in Rome was taken and uploaded by an editor there - if you can take photos of the scene in Russia, or other editors can take photos in Poland, Greece, etc., I'm sure they can be added if they are sufficiently informative and interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand...But I don't know what photo can show the principal difference between –27 and, f.e., –8 (as now). The coldness, yes. I know only that in Russia, where temperature falls below –39 (?), the children don't study at school (some information boards on school building...) So there are few photos in this article. :( P.S. What about to create a category on Commons? Is it a good idea? --Brateevsky(talk to me)21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Press reports show plenty of "typical" pictures of snow, icicles, ice on rivers, etc.. If you are able to take similar photos, I'm sure that one or two would be suitable. And, yes, a category would be good. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hellas-Greece name
Note that I wrote "Hellas (Greece)" and other editors reverted me and used only "Greece" even though I tried other ways to solve the dispute such as using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" or "Greece (Hellas)". Thus it was other editors who reverted me. Because I feel offended by this anti-Hellenic behaviour and I perceive it as an attack on my ethnicity I will not continue editing on Wikipedia and leave the project. Please see the sources I added in Name of Greece if you want to know more about the name issue. Thank you. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
