User talk:Cherkash

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

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

F1 results[edit]

I suspect the consensus was a long time ago and is in the archives somewhere. Long enough ago that it's worth starting a new discussion if you want to. The thing is, you're changing one of Fangio's results without changing any of the others, nor those of any other driver, creating a confusing inconsistency which couldn't realistically remain anyway. The consensus pretty much lies in that not a single shared drive result from any GP shows both drives and none of the editors who have drawn up the results tables has included both drives, or all three drives in some cases. I'm pretty sure that most other sources also only include the best result. In any case, it is polite to discuss major changes to the results tables, particularly when someone has reverted you, and particularly if it is going to be left to other editors to do all the rest of the hard work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It might not have been clear, but my facts are sound. I was referring to the type of article which you edited, i.e. the driver articles. As you point out, the race articles do show shared drives - all the race articles show them, in fact. But the driver results tables show the best result only, and that is what I was referring to.
Yes, it's impossible to update all the results at once - I'm sure you realise I wasn't suggesting that anyone attempts that. What is perfectly possible is that an editor can add all a driver's shared drive results to his results table in one edit. Not only possible, but easy, if it were desirable. Fixing one result in a single results table on a single page, and ignoring other results in that table which would need to be updated to match - that is not acceptable. That's my point. Also, it's not a question of my not wishing to "fix" the other results which you missed - I simply don't think all the shared drive results belong in a simple results table. The results tables are not stats dumps, and several editors work quite hard keeping excess information out of them to keep them readable for all users. Shared drives are indicated in the tables via asterisks (I did the majority of them myself), but only the best result is shown. A simple click will take a reader to the race article, where all the shared drives and relevant drivers are explained. To my knowledge, no driver results table shows multiple results for a single race. As I say, my revert of your edit was nothing to do with not wishing to do the other results as well - I just think it's excessive information for the driver results tables. Even if it were desirable, I disagree strongly that fixing one result in a table and ignoring the others is an acceptable method of editing. As you say, cross-checking and rooting out inconsistencies in F1 results is tedious and time-consuming, and to have inconsistencies wilfully inserted into a single table just makes life more difficult. As I said before, creating difficulties that other editors will find inconvenient requires a discussion and a consensus. Of course not everyone will agree, but in the F1 Wikiproject we have a very good record of working to consensus, even editors whose point of view is against consensus. Without consensus and discussion, the accuracy and consistency of such a large number of individually constructed results articles and driver tables will collapse very quickly. The F1 results data of the various articles is actually very consistent as it stands. Sure, in an ideal world, Wikipedia would have cross-referenced, self-updating articles. But it doesn't. Bearing in mind that none of us has any control or input into the data model that Wikipedia uses, I suspect you're right that it's too much to ask. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions go on the talk page[edit]

Hi. Regarding your recent edits to the 1961 and 1964 United States Grand Prix articles, you certainly have valid points and it would be interesting to find proper reliable sources for the answers to them. However, talk pages are where questions and discussions should be placed so if you have any more then please use these, or visit the WP:F1 talk page and raise them there if the point is a broad one. As for your observation regarding the copyright status of the text on these pages I did a little digging and the only sites that I can find that use that material are either mirrors of Wikipedia or were placed after the text appeared on Wikipedia, so no need to worry. Pyrope 03:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for popping into the conversation - I've always believed that the boxquoted text on the American GP articles were quotes from Road and Track, which is given as a reference (not a cited one, however) at the bottom of most of the articles. I've restored the boxquoting on the 64 article, which at least makes it clear that it is a quote. Without it we're simply using someone else's text. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I understand from Pyrope that I was wrong about that. My apologies! 4u1e (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Article importance[edit]

Rather than "plenty", there is precisely 1 GP article rated top and 5 7 non-2010 races rated high. All the others are either mid, or in the vast majority of cases, low. Unless something of above-average importance happened during that race, they are rated as low. Generally, all races are rated low, unless, as I say, something important happened during them.

You seem to misunderstand the rating system. It is not the content of the talk page that is being assessed, but the importance of the subject of the article to the WikiProject. The rating on the talk page has nothing to do with the discussion on that talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would add that your assessment of the 1950 British GP as "high" is an accurate one, as it was the first World Championship race. It should not have been rated as low. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The importance tag is strictly applied by the F1 Wikiproject, rather than by the encyclopedia as a whole, so the importance is seen solely from the point of view of those editors most likely to work on the article. It's a way of flagging the article up to be one which a lot of people will want to read for whatever reason - the San Marino 1994 article gets up to 10,000 hits per month, whereas for example, the 1994 Belgian GP gets around 700 hits per month. A "top" or "high" importance article should thus, theoretically, receive more attention from editors in terms of checking edits and spending time improving it. That's not to say that a greater level of accuracy is sought for it - all articles should receive full attention in terms of accuracy - but if a Wikiproject editor is looking for an article to work on, the importance scale will show him/her which articles are seen as higher priorities for the benefit of more readers. Likewise, in terms of drivers, Ayrton Senna (55,000+ hits per month) is top importance, while Alessandro Pesenti-Rossi (180 hits per month) is low importance. It's to few people's benefit if an article that nobody reads is expanded to a high degree while a popular, "important" article is neglected. The importance scale is a guide to help achieve this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, basically. I don't know if the guys who rated the articles (and some aren't rated yet) actually checked the traffic stats, but any editor with a strong knowledge of F1 would be able to judge which articles are going to attract the most readers. A quick check of a dozen or so articles shows that the importance levels are quite closely in line with article traffic. I don't think it needs to be definitively accurate or verifiable since the ratings are not in article space and are just as a guide for the WikiProject. Yes, a bot that could update the importance levels according to up-to-date article traffic stats would be useful, but I wouldn't have the first idea about how to create one. There are ways to flag up race articles that lack infoboxes or track diagrams etc, but it's outside my sphere of knowledge. I generally know which ones need doing - the problem is often not in identifying which articles lack certain aspects, but rather in finding editors who want to do the fairly tedious work of adding relatively dull info. Sometimes someone feels like it and does a few, but it can be pretty boring, and other work is more atractive. All race articles have the basics, i.e. full results, polesitter / winner / fastest lap etc and a succession box linking to other races. But obviously the races from the last few years are far more detailed simply because Wikipedia was online when those races were held. Older races require more research and hard work to get them up to scratch, and these articles attract very few editors. Also, there are well over 800 race articles and this can seem daunting, especially to new editors. This is more of a problem than flagging up those that need work. Article traffic stat tools are many, but I use this one [1]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Obviously the systems that FORIX and others use are preferable to the relatively long-winded manner in which Wikipedia is edited, and it would be great to have tools which might help Wikipedia editors speed up the full construction of the large grid of F1 data across all the relevant articles. Whether or not those tools exist already, or if not, whether or not they could be created, is something way outside my expertise. I'm sure other subjects within Wikipedia would also benefit from this, but I don't know of any effort being made in that direction. It may well be that other members of the F1 Wikiproject are less inept than I at this kind of thing, so it may be worthwhile discussing it there, or contacting some members directly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
A good place to start might be the technical section at the Wikipedia:Village pump - that's where you might be most likely to find folks who are more au fait with the technical stuff. They should be able to point you in the direction of members who may be working on similar things already. Application to F1 data will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, but it'd be worthwhile going there when there's more of a concrete proposal, as it's more suited to direct discussion of policy implementation. The more advanced the proposal, the more likely some of the cynics there will jump onboard. Good luck :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari's 800th Grand Prix[edit]

Hi Cherkash. I've re-raised the issue of Ferrari's 800th Grand Prix at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Ferrari's_800th_Grand_Prix - I thought it made sense to have the discussion in one centralised location, since it potentially affects several articles. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of dates by day of the week[edit]

Hello Mister Cherkash, sehen Sie bitte die File:Permanent_calendar_greg.svg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Perpetual_calendars) Hier werden viele Fragen beantwortet. Cherkash, please see the file: Permanent calendar greg.svg Here many questions are answered. Greetings from saxony --LenderCarl (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari entries[edit]

Hello there, and thank you! In response to your comments:

  • To compile the information, I used the entry lists present on each season article for information on Entrant/Chassis/Engine/Driver(s), and cross checked the results against the Grand Prix article and F1.com results. For referencing, I have yet to see these large tables referenced elsewhere, (including the works table above) so I am unsure of the best way to proceed. So far on the tables I have done, I have not provided references due to the complexity of multiple races and seasons included on one table. I have thought of providing links to results archives at the bottom of the page, and it would be trivial to reference in this way, I'm not sure what your suggestion might be?
  • Again, for the belief it is complete, I have checked the provided entry lists on the articles, and a spot check on results tables did not reveal any more private Ferrari drivers missing from entry lists. It is possible there are more entries I have missed of course, but I do doubt that. Ideally, the editor(s) that provided the entry lists on the season pages could provide the source for the information.
  • As for Scarlatti at the Monaco GP, I did not notice he was listed as a self entry on his article, and presumed he was under Scuderia Centro Sud for the Monaco race as well. I'm afraid I don't have a definitive answer to that one.

QueenCake (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the need for some proper referencing on articles, and I've provided my opinions on the discussion. As for Scarlatti, if indeed he entered himself, I fully agree with a correction to the table. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CFR links not current[edit]

Dear Cherkash, Thanks for the modifications to links. Unfortunately, the links created for CFR are not current. The GPO has instituted an e-cfr system which has text of CFR updated daily for changes that become effective the previous day. The WP automated link is to OLD (like over a year old) regs. Can you revert until the WP tool is fixed? Thanks. I'll also let an Administrator know. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

URGENT: Please discontinue use of the built-in CFR links[edit]

Dear Cherkash, As I indicated above, the links to the Code of Federal Regulations automatically generated within Wikipedia are to OLD regulations, which are now over a year out of date. It is critical that you discontinue use of that set of linking features until it is fixed. I will revert your edits for this reason. I have asked ArthurRubin to help with fixing the automatic links. Until they are fixed, DO NOT USE THEM! Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I was unable to revert, and have referred it to an administrator. Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

SantasOnSteps.jpg Happy new year!
We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard-to-identify characters[edit]

Please do not change HTML entities to characters in situations where the characters will be hard to identify in edit mode, as you did at Greenwich Mean Time. See WP:MOS#Keep markup simple. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Possessives in grammar[edit]

If you read MS:POSS, you will see that both versions are acceptable:

Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

This applies equally to Mercedes, Lotus and Williams.

Trust me. I'm an English teacher. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The MOS specifically states that s' is acceptable if it is consistently used throughout the article, which it was prior to your change. The359 (Talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This has been raised multiple times, and every case I'm aware of, the conclusion has been to use -s's instead of -s'. I'll refer to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#MOS:POSS_broken and Talk:Steve_Jobs/Archive_3#Jobs.27_or_Jobs.27s.3F for some examples of extended discussions. Prisonermonkeys, being an English teacher, I suggest you re-consider your point in view of overwhelming recommendations in numerous manuals of style. cherkash (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've created a copy of our discussion on the article's talk page, please continue discussion there if you want to pursue it further. cherkash (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have reverted your changes pending the outcome of the discussion on the Talk page. I don't know how familiar you are with the Formula 1 project, but when someone proposes changes to an article, we generally prefer to keep the article in its original state until a consensus is reached. This promotes article stability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop editing the page. You are already in violation of 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You were told that you needed a consensus to get those changes through. Currently, there is a preliminary consensus against you. Therefore, you are the one who is in violation of 3RR. That's how we've done it in the past, to keep it consistent with the policy of waiting for consensus before making changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2012 Formula One season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

  • Just to be very clear, you have broken the three revert rule. This is your very final chance to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Further editing against consensus will result in a block. My banhammer is ready. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks Aldo samulo (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karaite Folk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (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) 11:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Overtagging[edit]

re Frank J. Burgoyne and Émile Sagot‎: these are substubs created to support documentation of copyright info needed for their work on Commons. Now obviously they're orphans, fair enough. And I suppose they're technical "dead end pages" since they've no wikilinks. But what the heck needs to be "wikified" about them? Rd232 talk 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikify[edit]

Hi, just so you know, the Template:Wikify has been deprecated. AWB programmers have been notified that it needs removing from its system, but in the meantime, would you please be able to not add it if AWB suggests it? Other tags that are now used are Template:Underlinked or Template:Dead end. Hopefully a new version of AWB will soon be released that does not add Wikify. Thanks! Delsion23 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

ABW[edit]

[2] ;) SpiderMum (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, why did you add these tags here? The article had a category, and does not need wikifying. Please be more careful when you tag in the future, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

and now I see you've been warned above about adding the wikify tag and about overtagging. Please slow down and stop these unnecessarily and undesirable tags. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I will add my 2 cents: Apperently this editor doesn't read his messages, and instead of discussing the matter with you, went in and orphan tagged my Nebria species, on which I worked hard! Can someone stop him? I already removed the tag from 2 of the species, but I can't run and revert every edit he makes!--Mishae (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Orphan tagging of Nebria dahilii was technically correct (it was an orphan at the time). I haven't checked the others. More concerning is lack of discussion. Rd232 talk 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't discussed it with you, but I did discussed it with another editor. Again, I was just confused here, but Cherkash should have replied to his messages above, especially if he is not on Wikibreak (and I don't see that tag on his talkpage!) Ofcourse, I don't mean should or else, I mean as a polite editor... Not that I saying that he is not, but I personaly, always reply to the concerns either on mine or Ryan Vesey's talkpage!--Mishae (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for the comments. Wikify tag has indeed been deprecated, so I'm not using it anymore. cherkash (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the deprecation myself (and I'm not sure I entirely agree with it...). Rd232 talk 17:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you add the uncategorized tag to an article which had a category, then, and more importantly, why are you ignoring concerns on your talk page about your out-of-control tagging? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VHF omnidirectional range, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radial (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) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aeroflot Flight 902, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cherkash. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer Talk 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeping established citation style[edit]

This edit converted a citation to a citation template when such templates were not in use in the article. Please be sure to read WP:CITEVAR. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aeroflot Flight 902, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Jetstreamer Talk 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, you clearly haven't been reading your own talk page, specifically this section, so I'm posting on both our talk pages in hope that you'll read at least one. I gave you very clear reasons why you are talking nonsense per Wiki policies, and I gave you a 3 days courtesy period to respond and continue discussion before I've re-established my changes. All you do is continue bullying tactics instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion. I'm going to move this conversation to the article's talk page for future record, and I'm warning you that it's your behavior that is actually considered disruptive in this case. So stop it! cherkash (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cherkash. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer Talk 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I do not save such edits [3] [4] – they clutter watchlists and logs – and wish you the same. AWB was not designed for such edits, please reconsider. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Langlois Lefroy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP (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) 11:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Private pilot licence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glider (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) 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger of glider articles[edit]

You have given no reason, as is customary and you should read the talk pages for these articles. This has been suggested before and rejected. The term glider can be applied to a wide variety of aircraft - hence glider (aircraft). The type used for sport - glider (sailplane) are the most common type and a large amount can be said about just these that is specific to these. Trying to merge would produce an article trying to cover too much ground. Please remove your tags from the article.JMcC (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you JMcC (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Those metropolitan areas moves were not "uncontroversial"[edit]

Hi. I don't think we've met. I see that you have been converting terms like "Metropolitan Statistical Area" from proper nouns to common nouns. You apparently thought these were uncontroversial moves (and convinced an administrator to do some of them on that basis), but they were contrary to consensus at the recent Requested move discussion at Talk:Statistical area#Requested move (also see prior discussion at User talk:Buaidh#"United States" statistical area article titles).

Because "Metropolitan Statistical Area" is a proper noun (at least as used in the articles) I would like to undo the moves of Metropolitan Statistical Area and List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, but first I wanted to make contact with you and alert you to the background of those names. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing my attention to these discussions. Although it doesn't seem to me that a reasonably agreed-upon consensus was reached, I will nevertheless stop further edits for the time being. I think this topic deserves further discussion. Seems it has never reached further than temporary naming of a handful of the articles. cherkash (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Orlady, would you mind elaborating why you consider those names to be proper nouns? I understand they may have specific meaning in the US context (or even more specifically, as used by OMB), but it's not clear how this makes them proper nouns. E.g., there are many terms which are specific to a given industry, profession, or region – but the usage which is limited to a certain population doesn't necessarily make the nouns proper (nor does it require capitalization). cherkash (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't respond sooner, Cherkash. Oddly enough, I think I read your 23:23 comment before you posted your followup 13 minutes later, and I failed to notice your followup.
The principal logic is/was that the terms "Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Micropolitan Statistical Area" and "Consolidated Statistical Area" are consistently treated as proper nouns by the Office of Management and Budget[5], which defines these terms. This is muddied, however, by the fact that the Census Bureau seems to treat them as common nouns: [6], [7]. An additional consideration is/was that the use of a proper noun emphasizes that the distinction between these terms in this usage and any generic usage that these terms (and related terms like "metropolitan area") might have. Further, in retrospect I must observe that the opinions I expressed in those discussions likely were influenced by two possibly idiosyncratic perspectives of mine:
  • My desire to reach a consensus that is likely to be reasonably stable (meaning that it does not deeply upset and offend editors with strongly held views in support of positions that are not inherently unreasonable), because I don't like interminable arguments.
  • My desire to avert what I see as a rigid thinking pattern prevalent at Wikipedia, wherein federal government definitions are equated with Revealed Truth. In this case, that thinking pattern perceives that the only U.S. "metropolitan areas" eligible to be discussed in Wikipedia articles are the officially defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas. By capitalizing the term "Metropolitan Statistical Area", I hoped to emphasize that this is a very particular term and that there are other legitimate interpretations of the term and concept of a "metropolitan area". --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see your arguments. They certainly have some merit. As I mentioned before, the terms being capitalized is certainly just a matter of typographically setting them out in the text, rather then of the OMB referring to them as proper names. Compare, e.g., capitalization of non-specific terms like "Metropolitan Statistical Area" rather than "Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area" in the first link you quoted. Although the latter can be somewhat construed to be a proper name, the former is clearly just a term, not a proper name.
With respect to your other reason (to set those article apart from "metropolitan area" articles/terms to distinguish OMB-specific use), I think the term MSA vs MA already does sufficiently serve this purpose. I think I wouldn't be far off by saying no one uses the term MSA in everyday speech – so the specificity of the "metropolitan statistical area" already sets those articles apart and distinguishes them enough.
Having said this, I do whole-heartedly agree with you that there's nothing about federal government definitions (or any government's for that matter) that sets them apart from other sources. Government documents are not more authoritative for Wikipedia than other documents, and one could even argue that in some cases they could be more dubious. There's also nothing about them that makes them inherently authoritative secondary sources. Also, to make a somewhat different but related point: just because a government cared to speak/write on a subject, it doesn't automatically make the subject notable. So your point is well taken. I would still say this doesn't make capitalization necessary. cherkash (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Apollo asteroids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (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) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steven Brill (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare (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) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see talk page of article Chargemaster[edit]

Please see talk page of article Chargemaster, at Talk:Chargemaster#Older_accessdates. — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a bit more there. I think you are mistaken about your assumptions about "accessdate", not sure where you came up with that. — Cirt (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Source obscurity not a valid reason for deletion[edit]

In nominating Axel Vogt for deletion you cited obscurity of sources as one reason. Please note that this is not a valid reason for deletion in any way, shape or form. I agree that the article in its current form doesn't make it obvious why he's worthy of note (it takes someone with knowledge of the subject matter to know that being the chief mechanical engineer of the richest railroad in the world at the time can't fail to be notable, but that's too obscure to be useful). I'm going to expand the article so that his notability is much more obvious. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey Cherkash

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Hurricane Sandy[edit]

I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chechen–Russian[edit]

Not sure why you thought a hyphen would be better than an en dash in this connection of two parallel terms in the sense of "versus". It's a classic en dash situation. I fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. cherkash (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of en dashes in Boeing airplane numbers like here and runway numbers like here are probably also due to an over-zealous application of a script to where it does not apply. Please review and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure in these cases. Runway numbers seem to be a no-brainer for an en-dash: an "and" case. Model numbers – I'm not sure either way: I've seen en-dashes used in this situation, and there's no clear justification I can see for either hyphen or en-dash. cherkash (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps so on the runway numbers; it's at least logical, and they're often seen with slash, which is a good sign that a dash is good alternative. But airplane models like the Boeing 737 Classics, I'm pretty sure not. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isadora Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salchow (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) 09:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Land bank (banking)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Land bank (banking) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, and no more than a dictionary definition.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 11:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447[edit]

Dear Cherkash. My point is not about the flight code "AF447" have been retired (this is fact). But the flight (or route) still exists. As it stands, it seems that the route no longer exists.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vitelline duct, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lumen, Vesicle and Ectopic (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) 08:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Thanks for your edits to Anatomy articles recently! Sorry, we only have this one template to greet new users! --LT910001 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Local government area 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:
  • {db-move|Local Government Area|no need for caps in the title (subject is not a proper noun, also see the usage in the article itself}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Bayes' theorem[edit]

Hello Cherkash. Regarding the spelling Bayes's: see multiple prior discussions, such as those in Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 1, Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 4 and Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 5. If you still think it should be moved, see the instructions for opening a Requested move at WP:RM/CM. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Pythagorean theorem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - DVdm (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vnukovo International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IMC. 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) 09:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ternopil, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
If you believe you have a policy and/or guideline rationale for introducing the German and Russian nomenclature into the lead, please follow WP:BRD. You've simply restored your own unexplained content without bothering to discuss it on the corresponding talk page.
Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Lit parameter for languages[edit]

Hi Cherkash,

I have replied to your message at User talk:Yaris678#Lit parameter for languages.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to File:USA annual VMT vs deaths per VMT.png[edit]

Please stop messing up the graph File:USA annual VMT vs deaths per VMT.png. You can copy it and upload your own version if you like, but when you edit the original file you're affecting four articles that use it. Copy it and upload your own version. If you think your version is better, then discuss it on the page you want to change it on. Please stop edit warring and use talk pages to justify the changes you want. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to distance yourself a little bit from your creations. Your tone presumes I've been editing it and "edit warring" with you for quite a while, whereas in reality this was my first involvement with this graph.
Now, to the essence – which version is better is debatable. I've brought up a particular argument for my revert of your earlier revert, namely that the other editor's version contains longer time series and is easier to read. You may agree or disagree – but you need to stop making this personal without any reason, and should discuss better reasons for why your own version is better than a very vague "you're affecting four articles" argument... cherkash (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if you want a specific suggestion – extend the graph to at least 2012, and make some kind of grid visible in the background (for large graphs with a lot of empty space it's the must to increase readability) cherkash (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
When you come along and revert the way you did, rather than take up the discussion, what kind of reaction do you expect? If it's already been reverted once, the time is to talk, not keep reverting. The constructive thing to do is to go to Talk:Transportation safety in the United States and see if others think that article is better with a graph with more lines on it. I can provide plenty of reasons why it's not helpful to add chartjunk to this graph; there's significant work in infographics design against excessive lines that convey little information. Let's discuss it on an appropriate talk page. Then more editors can weigh in and see if they think that improves the article. And if you create a second copy, you can avoid the confusing situation of changing four articles with an edit to one image. For example, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration uses the graph on a smaller scale than Transportation safety in the United States, so the grid doesn't look at all the same in both articles, and changes need to be handled separately. You can do that by uploading your own version. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
If you really insist on a particular formatting, please make it easy for others to update the data (or do it yourself diligently, whenever new data points come out – annually or otherwise). May I suggest one of the examples of making it easy for other editors: check out, e.g., source code here – by no means the only way to do it, but one of the easier ones to let others update data without messing up your favorite format. What you are currently trying to do – holding on to a format, and sacrificing most recent available data to it – is not tenable. cherkash (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vyazma Airport, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages L-39 and ROSTO. 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) 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Plain dashes in airport articles[edit]

Hello. Your recent history shows that you have been replacing plain dashes with ndashes across a number of airport articles. I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_13#Dashes_for_ndashes_reverted. The project consensus is to use plain dashes.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Which dash is plain? em or en? Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Plain dash = hyphen.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering. In that previous conversation, nobody appeared to know the difference between a hyphen and a dash. An en dash is actually more sensible in these constructs, if I understand what you're referring to, unless there's an agreement on a modified style for the abbreviated versions. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Dicklyon on this one. There is no such thing as a "plain dash": there are two kinds, en dash and em dash. Hyphen is distinct and is used differently than either one of the dashes. Using hyphen instead of a dash is purely a shortcut and convenience, based on the hyphen/minus key available on most keyboards. Stylistically, semantically, and typographically, we shouldn't be confusing all four (hyphen, en dash, em dash, minus sign). So my edits reflect fairly standard English rules and guidelines on which one of the four to use in which case. The case of airport names is a fairly straightforward case where an en dash is appropriate (instead of an easier-entered hyphen). cherkash (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:AIRPORT regarding this. Please do not make more of these modifications until the matter is settled.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacing HTML entities with indistinguishable marks[edit]

In Watt you replaced all the HTML entities for dash-like marks with the corresponding characters. However, it is difficult to distinguish these marks (for example, – from −) in edit mode. I have undone the edit in accord with MOS:MARKUP. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Dashes are not mark-up – they are punctuation. Just because characters look similar, doesn't mean we need to start going out of our way and use HTML markup to disambiguate between them when they are used. Consider "l" (small L) and "1" (one), O (capital O) and 0 (zero), and other such pairs. We don't use markup in those cases, neither there's a need in dash/hyphen pair. Just use whatever punctuation is appropriate (as text, not markup!), but even if you make a mistake don't sweat it, as someone else might fix it for you later. cherkash (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, because letters of the alphabet are easy enough to distinguish through context and spell checking. Dash-like-marks are hard for editors who wish to copy-edit an article to distinguish. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There's not that much to distinguish. It's punctuation, and it actually looks different in most fonts. So you either notice the difference and spot the incorrect one and fix it, or you don't and then someone else will. Again, no need to turn proper punctuation into mark-up. cherkash (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, most browsers and editors would search for what you ask for – so you can easily search for only hyphens or only dashes depending on what you are trying to do with your copy-editing. cherkash (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you see discussion[edit]

Did you see the discussion about proper capitalization of a header in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#2RR, no BRD, is Senator capitalized in context? Needs you to put forward your argument for lower case, otherwise it will go back to upper case. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Formula 1 season[edit]

On the 2015 Formula One season page there is an error, it says that this season is the first where no car number 1 was entered since 1994 when Alain Prost Retired in 1993 after winning the world championship. Any F1 fan know that in 1993 there was no car number 1 because Nigel Mansell left F1 after winning the championship in 1992 because of this Williams entered prost in car number 2 and Damon Hill in car number 0. I can't fix the page so can someone please fix that? Joe31389 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"First time since X" means it didn't happen between X and now. It does not mean it didn't happen before X. cherkash (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shilajit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chrome. 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) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

recent moves of selected math theorems[edit]

Note that the possessive 's is usually not applied to historical names that and with an s, in that case a mere apostrophe is actually correct spelling if not even the preferred form (see for instance[8], [9]).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not so. There are only very limited "traditional" exceptions, e.g. Jesus. There's no blanket exception for historical names. cherkash (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite agree and the names in question certainly seem to fall in the "traditional exception" category, at least their spelling with s' is quite common in math literature (though in general you find both soellings). Anyhow I raised the issue now here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#spelling_issue_for_math_theorems:_s's_versus_s'.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the use of the {{math}} template[edit]

What is your objection to the {{math}} template (in the Mann–Whitney U test‎ article)? It makes for clearer reading with my operating system, browser, etc. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a complicated mark-up that's unnecessary for simple formulas, and especially unnecessary for single variables like U, x, etc. There are potential problems with rendering, and also an unnecessary mixing of text and pictures in a flowing text.cherkash (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I have to disagree with you. I don't find the word "math" nor the double brackets to be particularly complicated. It makes the rendering, even of single variables, nicer on my system. I know of zero potential problems with rendering, and there is no mixing of text and pictures. Perhaps you are confusing the {{math}} template with the <math> format, the latter of which has some of the problems you enumerate? 𝕃eegrc (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe[edit]

With all respect, I have reverted your punctuation change at Jessica Alba. WP:MOS states that we use the possessive apostrophe without an apostrophe-S. The specific example it uses is: "five CD-ROMs' titles were misspelled". Also, per WP:BRD, please do not edit-war when reverted, but discuss your issue on the artidle's talk page. Thank you for understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The WP:MOS example you cite is for plurals of acronyms or for possessive plural acronyms. The present case is a singular and isn't an acronym. Contrastingly, it is common to use the likes of "Gates's" for singular nouns ending with "s". 𝕃eegrc (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I did inadvertently point to the wrong part of the MOS, and I apologize. At MOS:POSS it states: Add only an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name: Sam Hodges' son, Moses' leadership [...]. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe the onus is now on someone to show that the possessive is or is not commonly pronounced the sames as the straight noun "Gates". FWIW, I say the possessive differently from the noun and thus spell it "Gates's". 𝕃eegrc (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ASL Hungary Flight 7332 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ASL Hungary Flight 7332 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/ASL Hungary Flight 7332 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

See my comments at the deletion discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Plural / singular agreement for teams[edit]

Just a heads up, as I see you and Tvx1 reverting over this – in British English, either a plural or a singular is grammatically correct for teams. It's called synesis. Generally, and especially for football, the plural is more common, but neither is wrong. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it's fairly common in terms of verbs usage. But this doesn't spread to the rules about possessives: it's still a singular possessive in this case, unless the name/noun itself is clearly plural (e.g., The Beatles), which in case of Mercedes it's not. cherkash (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, got you. That's what I get for judging a situation from edit summaries without checking the edits themselves. I thought you were arguing about "Mercedes is" or "Mercedes are". Just ignore me, carry on ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Always appreciate a good-natured comment if need to clarify things. cherkash (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Either form is correct in singular and we have always opted for the variation without extra s. Still it's a plural here. It's their streak not its streak. Tvx1 02:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cherkash. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cherkash. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Bahrain[edit]

Will, I've moved our discussion completely to your Talk page: it's becoming harder to follow otherwise. I'll be checking it there, so no need to write here anymore. Or you can of course use the "Talkback" template if you want. cherkash (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

ENGVAR[edit]

Before continuing to change American English spelling to British spellings, you should familiarize (or familiarise) yourself with MOS:ENGVAR. Quale (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

They->he[edit]

I don't see the point. You're spending a lot of time changing something that doesn't need to be changed, that will create an inconsistency with the articles concerning female drivers - which I hope you have thought of before starting. You're also going against the settled, standard phasing agreed upon ages ago, which suggests you should have brought up your rationale for changing things first. Do you have a reason? QueenCake (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the female articles were clearly thought about, but there are very few to really matter, and I'm careful to avoid a gender misstatement. I'm only changing the phrases where it's clear that a singular was meant. I'm not touching a lot of properly phrased places. cherkash (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blair–Brown government listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blair–Brown government. Since you had some involvement with the Blair–Brown government redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevéselbert 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

F1 article titles[edit]

Hi Cherkash,

I revived the discussion about season article titles at your request. Given your enthusiasm for the idea, I'd like to hear your thoughts now that a proposal has been put forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RM[edit]

Is needed before moving. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to edit war you may be blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Doc James This is not an edit war on my part. I've done a lot of other improvements on those articles besides the contested singular-possessive changes. So reverting all of them en masse without giving any distinction to multiple changes, is at best laziness on your part, and at worst an act of edit warring you referred to. So I suggest you stop reverting bulk changes and if you disagree with some particular element in them, you can take time to revert that particular element only by doing incremental changes instead of a revert/undo. Again, like I mentioned in the edit summaries, bulk of those copyedits are uncontroversial and involve proofreading, punctuation, etc. Those articles don't belong to you and you are not a final authority of what should or should not be done there. cherkash (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to restore the changes other than the change to the name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

Could you please add references when you make edits? That way, they won't be reverted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, as you should know by now if you pay attention, I usually do. I didn't this time as I was under impression it's already there – but it was in the USGP article instead, so I copied it now. cherkash (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You should always double check. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Electronic Codebook[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Electronic Codebook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Lengthy comment at AN3[edit]

Please consider removing (or striking out) your lengthy comment at WP:AN3. If this discussion needs further participation by admins, you could post this comment at my talk or User:Callanecc's talk, or use a different board. The best way to settle the underlying issue is by a content settlement, for example at WT:WikiProject Formula One. Admins are unlikely to intervene based merely on your assurance that you are behaving better than the others, or that the other guys follow IDONTLIKEIT while you do not. There is no substitute for your persuading the other content editors to agree with you. If an WP:RfC is held and people still disagree, you can ask for an admin to close it and judge the consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Callanecc: Here is a link to the comment I posted on the discussion: link. I would still like this addressed (here, or possibly in another forum as it's of a fairly common interest), as the issue of which version gets "enshrined" prior to a block is fairly important. cherkash (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The answer is very simple and you don't need an administrator to tell you that. Whenever an administrator decides to fully protect an article following an ANI or AN3 complaint they simply protect it in the version that exists at the moment they decide to impose the protection. They will never look into the dispute any take a side in the argument. I strongly suggest that you read m:The Wrong Version.Tvx1 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

F1 2017 Toro Rosso Drivers[edit]

You were involved in the discussion about the order of the Toro Rosso drivers on the page: 2017_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship. Unfortunately we have been unable to resolve this issue and I have decided to take this to DRN. Given your involvement in this discussion, I have included yourself on the list of involved users. You can find the information of the dispute below. Thanks.

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari's private entries[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you removed the statistics of Ferrari's private entries. It was decided here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Ferrari statistics that private entries are to be included in Ferrari's page. Whether we talk of the team or the constructor is the same difference and is a matter open to discussion, but we will leave it as it his and keep the privateers' entries. Regards.RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RafaelS1979, let's set the record straight. "It was decided" is quite an overstatement: the discussion was purely about the List of Formula One records and List of Formula One constructors articles at first. And only towards the end of that brief discussion you mentioned "they should also be included on Ferrari's wiki page" – and another editor just went ahead and did what you asked (there was not much of a discussion or challenge to it). That's until I posted my comment there, by which time the change was already done, and then I went ahead and restored the team stats, as opposed to the constructor stats – but only on the Scuderia Ferrari page. So if you feel strongly about it, let's continue the discussion there. I do feel strongly about the team vs. constructor stats: they are different, and certainly there is no reason why pages that deal with different topics (constructor records vs. team records) should have the stats synchronized in any way (which was the premise of your "they should also be included" comment). cherkash (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll ask for protection on the page and I'll report you for edit warring. You've been warned.RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious, RafaelS1979? It boils down to this? So you disagree with something, and instead of having a discussion you are resorting to childish threats? cherkash (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Even if you prefer that the team's stats should be on Ferrari's page as opposed to the constructor's stats, which I can understand, considering the fact that they're are notes and references to separate the two entities per say, why can we just agree to leave it like that because all the stats are included with explanation?RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Because there is a significant difference between teams and constructors in Formula 1, although in recent years they have been synonymous (since for a number of years, by regulation every team must have been a constructor/designer of its own car). So although most people with vague knowledge of history of the sport don't appreciate that, the distinction is quite important.
Now for the main reason the privateer stats should not be included: the article is about the team, not the constructor. That's really it. And the very reason the notes accompany the stats, is for the folks like yourself who tend to forget the difference or not give it enough appreciation. cherkash (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. Our articles, including the Ferrari one, are always about the constructors, not the teams. This is evidenced by us having articles on Virgin Racing, Marussia and MRT or likewise Lotus and Caterham. Results are awarded to constructors, not teams. It is WP:F1's consensus that having articles on constructors is the only efficient way to group results in concurrence with how they were awarded by the FIA. As a result of that, we don't have one article for such teams as the ones which has been known as Toleman/Benetton/Renault/Lotus/Renault or Tyrell/BAR/Honda/Mercedes throughout their history.Tvx1 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1, the terms "constructor", "team", and "competitor" are synonymous and used interchangeably in the recent years. (See e.g. 2017 F1 Sporting Regulations articles 6.2, 6.3, and 7.2 to establish that "constructor" and "competitor" are synonyms; and then throughout the Sporting Regs to see that the word "team" is used as a synonym for "competitor".) So the point you've just made (quoting: "Results are awarded to constructors, not teams") about the teams/constructors/competitors (all of which competed in recent seasons only) is incorrect – all of these entities are simultaneously "constructors" and "teams" (again, these have been synonymous in recent years).
Going back further in history, the equivalence of "teams" and "constructors" is indeed broken – which is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. But none of your examples show anything with regards to that. So would you care to make your point again using different arguments (if this point of yours is not moot yet, after what I pointed out)? cherkash (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So if these terms are synonyms in your opinion, then why on earth are making such stink about the article in question being about the "team" Ferrari and not about the "constructor"?? My point is that the contents of our articles are very clearly defined through consensus achieved at WP:F1. We write our articles on constructors as they are defined by the FIA and put the results in the articles that same governing body credited those results to. In this case all the contested result were credited to Ferrari as they constructed the cars. And don't go and make the mistake of retroactively applying the 2017 sporting regulations to say the 1967 World Championship.Tvx1 00:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Please re-read again my previous message. You are making the same points I already addressed there. To wit, my statement about synonymous terms is in the context of recent years only. And all the examples that you based your argument on, are precisely from these recent years. So your argument above simply doesn't hold any water. Care to make a more relevant one?
I also explicitly said that this was not the case in history (and definitely not in 1960s). So I already explained why I'm "making such stink" – it's precisely because the 1950–2017 stats of Ferrari the team are different from Ferrari the constructor (and they differ not in recent years, but mostly in 1950s and 1960s). cherkash (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No they are not. They were still all credited to Ferrari by the sport and thus they belong on their articles. Let's focus this discussion on one place at WT:F1 now.Tvx1 16:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cherkash. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of Archimedes' principle[edit]

Hi Cherkash, I think you will find that Encyclopaedia Britannica will use commonly accepted spelling. The use of Archimedes' as the possessive is the established version in the articles Archimedes' principle and Buoyancy, and should be discussed before changing. Please comply with the accepted convention of Bold-Revert-Discuss when your edits have been reverted with a reasonable explanation. You were bold, I reverted with an explanation, it is now your obligation to start a discussion if you think I am mistaken, not to revert back. I have read MOS:POSS, and have the opinion that this is one of the cases where no change is called for. Please revert to stable version until this is settled on the relevant talk pages. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pbsouthwood. As far as I know, there isn't such a thing as "commonly accepted spelling", at least in the context of choices being made by specific publications (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica since you mentioned it) – and this is precisely the reason why there are multiple manuals of style in existence, among which recommendations somewhat differ. Having said this, there are degrees to the levels of disagreement among them: so that there are more commonly accepted rules, and less commonly accepted ones. This specific topic has been discussed multiple times in various forums, and the majority of the manuals of style reviewed do tend to agree on the " 's " being a much less controversial form of the singular possessive regardless of whether the noun ends in "s/z" or not. Other variants are usually prone to being problematic. MOS:POSS, as being one of the guides for us at WP specifically, tends to lean this way as well. cherkash (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Bouyancy is far from the only article where Cherkash is also being tendentious about this. He has reverted twice on Brooks' theorem to get his way despite the fact that Google scholar results are running about 34:1 against him. He also did this to several articles involving French names that end with a silent s (Chasles' theorem, Descartes' rule of signs, etc) where the doubled s looks ridiculous because it more or less forces you to pronounce the name wrong. (See e.g. The APA Style Blog for confirmation that this was a mistake.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, see my answer directly above your comment for some initial points (I typed it while you were writing your comment, so we effectively "crossed the comments"). Now, to specifically answer your concern, the way French names with silent esses are pronounced, and in particular the way their possessives are pronounced, only emphasizes that the " 's " should be added instead of a single apostrophe: "write it the way you say it". cherkash (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that the style guides explicitly say not to do what you're doing, and you're still doing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
In the case of Archimedes' law, I do write it the way I say it. Perhaps I don't write it the way you say it, and herein lies the problem. Also I agree with David Eppstein's comments above. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood: Yes, it's not uncommon to pronounce Greek names in such constructions as " ...s " instead of " ...s's " – but it's actually not because we are saying " ...s' ", but because we are implicitly using an attributive form of a noun instead of a possessive. One needs to differentiate between the two in writing: the first one is written "<noun>" where the second is written "<noun>'s" (notice how there's no apostrophe at all in the first case). So "Archimedes principle" is fine, and so is "Archimedes's principle" – they are just two different grammatical construction each of which could be used in this case. "Archimedes' principle", on the other hand, intends to be the latter (a possessive form) but misspells it by skipping an "s" after the apostrophe. So I would argue the grammatical function is the primary one that needs to be determined first, and once you know which one you want to use the decision then will guide the spelling. cherkash (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Please stop putting an unconventional and unnecessary s on the end of Archimedes' Principle. You are welcome to spell it an pronounce it as you wish in your own documents, but Wikipedia follows common practice, per the Oxford English Dictionary and Encyclopaedia Britannica. I don't know anyone who pronounces it the way you do. Dbfirs 08:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Dbfirs: See my response directly above your comment about the two choices we face in this case: it's not really based on my personal preference, as I don't personally care which way we go (attributive vs. possessive). Since a single apostrophe usually hints towards the latter, I've made my edits accordingly. If there's a strong preference towards the former, we can drop apostrophes altogether. cherkash (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have some strange ideas about spelling and grammar in English. Are you claiming that the Oxford English Dictionary gets its spelling wrong? Dbfirs 11:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced that the Encyclopaedia Britannica editors are incompetent in their use of the English language. It is not particularly relevant whether there are other correct usages if the existing one is not wrong and therefore does not need to be fixed.
You present a false dichotomy with your choices, as you neglect to mention leaving it as it was, which the rest of us here seem to consider the obvious and preferable option, and one used by several reliable sources. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't boil down to competence/incompetence of EB's editors – it rather boils down to the specific choice of style. As a big publication with a long tradition, EB is surely to have an internal manual of style (MoS) they adhere to. So do many other publishing houses, periodicals, etc. Those manuals of style are often contradictory among themselves in many details (e.g. in the way they suggest treating singular possessive of the nouns ending in -s/-z). After all, those manuals of style are written for the sake of consistency within a specific publication or periodical, and not for the sake of being "right", "competent", or "final authority" on the language. Some MoS publications do rise to the point of becoming more of a commonly accepted authority on the use of English language – but only a few are considered authoritative in this sense. So it doesn't make sense to observe by inference what a particular publication's MoS (e.g., EB's in this case) recommends and then try to use this as an implicit authority on the language to be used on WP. Most MoSs don't rise to the status.
Having said this, let me remind you: we do have our own MoS here at Wikipedia, and we do need as well to adhere to it for the sake of consistency of our publication. We can debate the issues addressed by the WP's MoS, but it's rather more productive to do it with a view towards updating/clarifying it when not clear, rather than trying to argue non-adherence in one particular case, as you are trying to do here. (This is my interpretation of your arguments – as you are essentially arguing for the preference of the EB's MoS to the WP's MoS.) cherkash (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires consistency within each article, but not necessarily between articles. We follow common usage, and the majority of our good references. There are three possible spellings, and all are acceptable, but Wikipedia uses the one that is most common in general usage, thus Archimedes' principle, Charles's law, and Gauss's law. I agree that Stokes' theorem is less clear-cut, but the majority seem to stop at ' without the repeated s. I assume that you pronounce it as two syllables (Stokesez), whereas I pronounce it as one syllable. The same applies, I think, to Gibbs' inequality. Dbfirs 23:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens versus en-dashes in Birch + Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture[edit]

You put two en-dashes in place of hyphens in Birch–Swinnerton–Dyer in Elliptic Curve. I don't think this can be right. Peter Swinnerton-Dyer's surname is always spelled with a hyphen. One could, I suppose, make a case for an en-dash separating it from Bryan Birch's, thus: Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer. What are the precedents in other pages? Chris Thompson (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Cherkash is correct in linking two people using the en-dash, but I've replaced the hyphen in the hyphenated surname. Dbfirs 14:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was a typo, Christopher E. Thompson: I'm aware of Swinnerton-Dyer being a compound name – thank you for bringing this instance to my attention. And thank you for fixing it, Dbfirs. cherkash (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Maps[edit]

Hi cherkash,

I noticed that you have uploaded some maps to Wikicommons in recent years, particularly world maps highlighting nations hosting Grands Prix. Did you create those maps? If so, I was hoping you might be able to make one for 2018 FIA World Rally Championship as a calendar change (Turkey replacing Poland) has made the old one unusable and the creator of that old map hasn't been active for six months. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, the slight problem is that the map used in the 2015 & 2017 articles is in PNG format – which is very simple to modify (e.g. you can do it with standard graphics editors installed in most operating systems by default: e.g. MSPaint in Win, etc.), but the problem with PNG is that it's a raster format rather than a vector one. Vector formats (SVG among them) are much preferred on Wiki since, among other reasons, they scale very well. I can put it on my to-do list to create the 2018 WRC map in the proper format, meanwhile you can also try to do that by taking the 2018 F1 map I've created as the base file, and modifying it either manually (with a text editor, which is often a preferred way but could be onerous), or with a vector editor such as Inkscape. cherkash (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

US 16 in Michigan[edit]

Re: this edit, there is a reason it was set up that way. If you notice, that sentence is talking about individual tolls, which are properly adjusted for inflation using CPI. The other dollar values in the article are capital expenditures, so they're properly adjusted with other measures. However, CPI values are current through 2017 at the moment, while GDP (and NGDPPC) lag behind about 18 months for the US. Because of the sources, CPI will never lag behind the GDP measure. To ensure consistency, U.S. Route 16 in Michigan (and Brockway Mountain Drive) both use that somewhat peculiar setup so that the inflationary measures are always synchronized to the same output year. Imzadi 1979  01:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, I understood your logic the first time you mentioned it :) And I thought it may fly for a second, but then I realized you assumed a bit too much: 1) the data will always be published with the lag you mentioned, 2) the data will always be updated on Wiki (in the relevant templates) timely, and hence 3) the condition "year(US) >= year(US-GDP)" will always be true. Either of the first two may break at any time for any reason, and hence the pages will become broken. If you insist on doing things this way, I suggest you include hidden HTML comments on the relevant pages to warn other editors of your intentions – both to avoid unwanted "fixes", and to let future editors know how to fix things if they ever get broken because the condition above somehow got broken. cherkash (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the GDP edits[edit]

Thanks for fixing all the pages that used NGDPPC. Initially I couldn't figure out how to get a list of articles that used it, as you can't search wikitext for template parameters. Now I realize you must have used whatlinkshere on the dataset subtemplates (duh).

It's looking like the template deletions might not go forward as the only commenters so far don't understand the problem. No matter. In a few months they can be renominated when their complete, ongoing disuse is the only argument that will need to be made. The actual problem has been corrected; deleting the template is just a bit of tidying that can wait.--Father Goose (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Father Goose – the "what links here" with sub-templates was the way to go. I've tried other indicators as well (incl. the error message I've temporarily placed into the "inflation-fn" template), but it was unreliable due to wiki's internal page-caching being refreshed most likely only on page access (which obviously happens at random times, if at all).
I suggest you also post an independent "Support" or "Strongly support" vote in the template-deletion discussion, in addition to adding your comments. Your comments are extremely good and well thought out, but in the end whoever summarizes the discussion will most likely be looking at the tally of pro/against votes as a first indication, rather than going into details of whether those votes were logically justified in the first place or not. cherkash (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you care to cast your vote in the template-delete discussion, Father Goose? See my comment above. The discussion is being over-run now by people unfamiliar with most basic Economics 101 ;) cherkash (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Inflation problem[edit]

Hi - could you take a look at your inflation edit to Black Prince's Ruby? Says it is now worth £0 which seems in the wrong direction. Cheers - Tarcil (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Tarcil, it's already been fixed by another editor. It was just a rounding issue with the bar for the number set too high. cherkash (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
No talkpage consensus for your changes Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cherkash reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Wireless Communications Service[edit]

Hi, I'm Cwmhiraeth. Cherkash, thanks for creating Wireless Communications Service!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Are we referring to the United States here?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits in Mencius[edit]

Your adding of the extra "S" in the article Mencius is unnecessary, since Confucius ends with an S. Adding an apostrophe is all that is needed for the correct pronunciation. Adding an s to that results in an extra sibilant, which is awkward to read. Read §Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound for more detailed information.--Auric talk 11:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And stop doing it on Pope Francis' visit to Kenya as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Auric, you seem to have made a conclusion not really supported by the link you provided. The 's reflects how it would be pronounced by many speakers. So there's nothing awkward about the 's that would justify its omission. Moreover, the narrative there clearly justifies using 's for most, if not all, singular nouns ending with a sibilant (I quote: "the older practice of omitting the extra s", "...no longer recommends omitting the extra "s"."). MOS:POSS has a similar recommendation.
Joseph2302: stop piling on top of other people's conversations, esp. when you don't really provide any justification except what essentially is "I don't like it". Please re-read the MOS:POSS and the link provided above, and take this discussion to the Wiki's general MOS forums if you disagree. cherkash (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
No I agree with Auric- read the link they provided. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Joseph2302: Did you not see my response above? Clearly, I've read it, and I've pointed out where/how the conclusions made by Auric are consistent neither with the link provided, nor with MOS:POSS. cherkash (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I actually got to the link I provided by following MOS:POSS. I feel it's perfectly valid.--Auric talk 23:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
What's "perfectly valid", Auric? Your summary at the top of this discussion seems to contradict what is said in the article linked, as well as in MOS:POSS. cherkash (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see any contradiction. MOS:POSS has For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe. My summary isn't exactly definitive, which is why I directed you to that link. --Auric talk 11:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Auric: here's where the contradictions between your initial comment above and the link are:
  • "Your adding of the extra "S" in the article Mencius is unnecessary, since Confucius ends with an S"
This is directly contradicted by the link, which specifically says "Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe".
  • "Adding an apostrophe is all that is needed for the correct pronunciation."
I'm not sure where your claim of "the correct pronunciation" is coming from. Let me tell you though that often there's a confusion in our perception which stems from the two grammatically similar but distinct usage forms of a noun (in this case the noun being a person's name) being acceptable in a particular context of a sentence. These two forms are an attributive use of a noun ("bed frame"), and its possessive form ("bed's frame") – only the latter form ending with an 's, while the former doesn't take any changes: no apostrophe, no extra s. Our minds play a trick on us when the noun ends with a sibilant: we may not know for sure which form we actually intend to use when we say something, and those two forms get confused in our heads. Sometimes it may help to distinguish between them by deliberately using another noun in its stead – the one that doesn't end in a sibilant, and checking which form you'd use in the same sentence (e.g. "book"/"John" vs. "book's"/"John's").
cherkash (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. I was referring to the part that says If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; as well as the part Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive.--Auric talk 20:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Auric, this passage just explains how/why the omissions are sometimes justified. For various reasons, it's preferable to always use 's form, as it's much less ambiguous, and it almost always reflects pronunciation if / when we truly intend to use a possessive form instead of an attributive form in our speech. cherkash (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Prix (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) 09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)