User talk:Nitpicking polish
- 1 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 2 Coffea/Coffee consistency.
- 3 Reference errors on 11 February
- 4 Your edit to Gregorian calendar
- 5 August 2016
- 6 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 7 Context-sensitive grammar
- 8 Edit on Rey
- 9 "in late March or April"
- 10 Bad Edits
- 11 Edits to Nutmeg
- 12 Edits to Abrahamic Religions
- 13 Celtic references
- 14 Cultivar names
- 15 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 16 Date formats
- 17 Marvel Cinematic Universe
- 18 Thank You
- 19 Easter egg link
- 20 Beverage to drink
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Coffea page has accepted the change from berry to drupe, and I think in the name of consistency, the Coffee page should reflect that as well. The correct taxonomic classification is druple, and the common usage is not "berry" but "cherry" (see Coffea page). For reference, please see pg. 466 of "An Annotated Taxonomic Conspectus of the genus Coffea (Rubiaceae)," which is considered the primary authority on coffee taxonomy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 11 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the National American Woman Suffrage Association page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Your edit to Gregorian calendar
Please take note of the requirement of WP:CITEVAR that articles which do not use citation templates should not be converted to use them without first seeking consensus on the article's talk page. I have reverted your edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 220 of Borg 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- The URLs worked, but they were redundant with the DOIs in the same entries, and the DOIs are (at least in theory) more stable across site reorganizations and the like. Nitpicking polish (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit on Rey
- @Packer1028: See MOS:LQ, which I pointed to in my edit comment. Nitpicking polish (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
"in late March or April"
I don't mind having thanked you for reverting my change to "in late March or early April", as I hadn't investigated and you were correct. I still think some change is in order, however, as the text still tends to read as "in late March or late April", and that was what concerned me. When I did briefly investigate, the latest date I saw was April 23. This would qualify as mid-April, so that one unambiguous version might be "in late March or early/mid-April" or some punctuational variant of that. Another possibility would be "in late March or in April", a minimal but effective change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy McCoy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Roy McCoy: Good point; I've made the smaller change. Since, formally speaking, there is no latest possible date for Passover (with lots of qualifications on that statement—look at Hebrew calendar#Astronomical calculations if you care), I think that's both the simplest and most accurate change. Nitpicking polish (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Edits to Nutmeg
It's marginal, I know, and the dates in Nutmeg are a mess, but the most frequently used style for
|accessdate= is yyyy-mm-dd and your script should respect this and change access dates to this format, since this is an acceptable style as per MOS:DATEUNIFY. I reverted all the edits for now so you can check your script. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Fair enough; I noticed the inconsistencies, but not that the accessdates were consistent. I probably won't have time for script tweaking in the near future, so I'll leave the dates alone for now. Nitpicking polish (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually that's not how it was. The main dates were consistently md,y (but you changed them to dmy), and the access dates were inconsistent between three styles, but the slightly more common style was yyyy-mm-dd. My point is that you need to check separately the style used for "main dates" and the style used for access/archive dates, since MOS:DATEUNIFY allows these to be different, and then ensure that your script fixes them independently.
- This is not, of course, to deny the value of making dates consistent, which I strongly support. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Edits to Abrahamic Religions
Hello Nipicking. My impression is that he word sect doesn't work in this context: the main meaning of this term is "a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially :one regarded as extreme or heretical" (Merriam-Webster); "a religious group that has separated from a larger religion and is considered to have extreme or unusual beliefs or customs" (Cambridge Dictionary). Thank you --Idris.albadufi (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Idris.albadufi: As I said in my comment on the talk page, I'm not particularly attached to the word "sect", but the replacement phrase "communities of faith" has problems of its own. Among other things, in terms of internal consistency, the WP page for "sect" gives a definition that's at least arguably applicable, while the WP redirect for "community of faith" isn't appropriate at all. Nitpicking polish (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nitpicking polish, the nasalisation peculiarity of Portuguese is neither proved nor disproved as a Celtic feature simply because no one has conducted to my knowledge, a serious and thorough study on the topic. Historically however, it is a fact that the Celts dominated what is today's Portugal and the Lusitanians and Gallaecians were Celtic speakers. It is only natural that even though the ancient Celtic languages or dialects got lost, some of the sounds (and words) survived the subsequent languages brought by other peoples. The Romans brought Latin which replaced virtually all previous languages in this region of the world. Knowing the Celtic languages spoken today in the British isles to some degree and being 100% fluent in Portuguese, I can identify a number of common phonemes between these Celtic languages (particularly Scottish Gaelic. Listen to this and if you know European Portuguese well, you will identify a number of familiar sounds and even language rythm/cadence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GecqdL-BpXo) and European Portuguese. Like French although to a smaller extent, Portuguese has a number of phonetic features linked to the 'Keltoi' and/or the 'Celticised' peoples in Europe.Melroross (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Melroross: Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying (in which case, please correct me), if there are no reliable sources attesting this connection then, however likely it may be, your edits constitute original research, which is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. There is already a link to the page on Nasalization (which itself links to Irish eclipsis), and that might be an appropriate place to discuss the range of languages exhibiting some form of nasalization; but if your speculation itself isn't attested by any reliable sources then it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Have I mischaracterized your argument?
Just to point out that when you edited Apple recently, you incorrectly changed the formatting of some cultivar names. These always take single quote marks, not double ones. See MOS:SINGLE and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Arrgh. Thank you! I think I've even forgotten that before (and, possibly, you were even the same person who had to point it out to me last time). Thanks for cleaning up after me, and I'm sorry to have given you the work. Nitpicking polish (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
I know you mean well, but please stop changing date formats the way you've been doing e.g. at Mark Twain. An article's established format should generally be respected, and that includes (where present) the use of yyyy-mm-dd for access and archive dates. EEng 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @EEng: I'm sorry I disrupted the style; and yes, I acknowledge that an existing style should be respected. The article has access and archive dates in multiple formats (including dmy), so it wasn't clear to me that there was a single established style, other than that suggested by the four year old "use mdy" template.
- Well, I guess I didn't look closely enough to see there was inconsistency, and that does make the situation a bit different. On the whole, I find that most well-developed articles have taken to using the traditional MDY or DMY formats for publication dates, and the most "technical" yyyy-mm-dd format for access and archive dates, and that makes a nice visual distinction within each citation. As you probably know, people get a bit tetchy about scripted mass changes like that, so you need to be really careful. Anyway, happy editing. EEng 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
For your edits on the Post Classical History article. -Sunriseshore
Hi there. Thanks for addressing this edit, but I'm a little confused: which of the new links produced an "easter egg"? The way I see it, the previous content is actually more potentially confusing than the new one. I'd like to understand your reasoning better. Cheers, --Waldir (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Waldir: Linking "initially used" to "Japanese mobile phone culture" seems like an Easter egg to me, but I see what you mean about the current situation. What do you think about just making the link explicit? E.g.,
Nitpicking polish (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Beverage to drink
Hi. Following various discussions, the consensus is to use drink instead of beverage on Wikipedia, and we are gradually updating usage across the project. If you have a rationale as to why we should use beverage instead of drink, the most appropriate course of action is to raise a discussion on either the talkpage of Drink, Alcoholic drink, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. You may notice previous discussions on this matter on all these talkpages (incidentally, I was originally in favour of beverage, and was convinced by others that drink is the more appropriate, so I know where you are coming from!). SilkTork (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)