User talk:Ciphers

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

revert of my change[edit]

You recently reverted my deletion of the Biohydrology section of the article on Dysart Woods. I started to revise this section, but since the whole section is essentially a very poorly plagiarized version of the Abstract of my MS thesis I felt uncomfortable with the amount self citation involved and decided the specific details presented are not useful without more background information. I don't have time to write this material or figure out how to format it for wikipedia. If someone thinks this specific information is notable they should take the time to get it right.

Specifically: sentence 1 is factually incorrect sentence 2 is plagiarized, with words rearranged, but is unclear because the previous sentence claims there has been no mining. Does not mining cause changes in hydrology? sentence 3 is plagiarized and out of context sentence 4 is vague and adds nothing meaningful sentence 6 is incoherent, and incorrectly defines volumetric water content sentence 7 is plagiarized verbatim sentence 8 is incoherent

Wikidata weekly summary #254[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #255[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #256[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #257[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #258[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #259[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #260[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #261[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #262[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #263[edit]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #264[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #265[edit]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #266[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #267[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #268[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #269[edit]

July 2017[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Boston, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Please refrain from marking all your current edits as minor, when many of them appear to be extensive and complex. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Kolkata, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Doppler. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Dl2000 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates[edit]

Hi Ciphers, did you have particular reasons for removing maintenance templates such as {{Use dmy dates}}, {{Use British English}}, and {{Pp-pc1}} from pages? I've restored several of them since they generally shouldn't be removed without good reason, and the reasons weren't clear to me from the edits. If you object to their presence in those articles, please remove them again. A rationale in the edit summary would also be helpful to other editors. Cheers.—Laoris (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides the above, I have concerns about some of the changes you've made on many pages you have edited:
  • The first time the article title is used in the lead sentence, it doesn't need to be capitalized if it's not a proper noun. WP:LEADSENTENCE gives some examples of this.
  • Metadata templates such as {{taxonbar}} and {{Authority control}} should appear after the last section and navboxes, and before the categories, as indicated in their template documentation and as outlined at MOS:ORDER.
  • The {{DEFAULTSORT}} template should appear directly before the list of categories, not after, per its template documentation and as outlined at MOS:ORDER.
  • Interwiki linking templates such as {{Commons category}} or {{Wiktionary}} should appear at the top of the last section in the article, not after navboxes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § Links to sister projects.
  • Categories whose name matches the article title are known as eponymous categories and when used in their eponymous article, should be sorted with a space so that the article appears at the beginning of the category. For instance, at the Verona article, the Verona category should be used as [[Category:Verona| ]].
The Manual of Style indicates the accepted placement for many of these templates, and each template typically has documentation indicating its correct use. Consistent use and placement of these templates help other readers and editors find them more easily.—Laoris (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ciphers, I just wanted to again encourage you to use the Wikipedia style guidelines as you edit, especially those mentioned above. While I am pleased to see that you are taking time to contribute to Wikipedia, and although it is not required to know and follow every guideline, since you are making significant contributions I think it would be even more beneficial to follow the guidelines above to help promote consistency and intuitiveness. Thanks for your time! —Laoris (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

UK Dialing Codes[edit]

This is just a quick note to say that UK dialling codes do not have dashes in them. I have taken the dash out of Guildford without reverting your whole edit. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #270[edit]

Gender dysphoria[edit]

Thanks for your change to Gender dysphoria. It was mostly pretty good and I liked the direction you were going, but I reverted it because of a couple of miscues here and there (e.g., not "a transgender", and something else). But since this is the lead of a controversial article, you have to tread very carefully. Either go to the Talk page and discuss, or else just try your same change again, but instead of all at once in one edit, break it up into five or more very small edits, each one doing just one, very specific thing: change or add one infobox param; change or add another infobox param; add the part about "as a result of a mismatch", and so on; just going a few words at a time, or a single thought at a time, and for each one add a complete explanation in the edit summary. If you have to write two sentences of Edit summary about why the six words "as a result of the mismatch" is better, than do it (I agree with you, it is better, but you're going to have to show you've put some thought into this, and why it's better.) If you break up your edit this way, then if someone comes along and has a quarrel with a couple of words or a param here or there, they can just revert or change that one, instead of the whole thing. In general, I like your changes, and I hope you will try again. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

But see also User:Flyer22 Reborn's comments in the edit summary here. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)