User talk:Esszet

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

An invitation to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Esszet, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Please Me[edit]

What is "the article" on this (excellent) album? I'll be happy to add it if you like. Let's not edit war here. :) --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's Twist and Shout. In the sentence I added, I linked to it… Esszet (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, a link to another Wiki. page does not count as a "reliable source" (at least not in my experience with other editors). Found another reference which hopefully will suffice. The word structure of your edit (which I'll reinsert) may need slightly changing. Regards --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dan56 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dan56. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Revolver (album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Amaury. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sammy Davis, Jr., but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article says he converted to Judaism. 02:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you deleted a sentence with source in an article, Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj without mentioning an identified reason. It has been reverted. Please stop deleting other people's sourced work which is accounted as vandalism. Thank you. Mongolkhun (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable the visual editor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits[edit]

I have reverts your edits (1 2) to the Leo Isacson article, changing his death date from the 28th to the 21st, which are in clear conflict with a rather reliable source, the US Congress.

Is there a reason you changed this, or was it vandalism? Am I going to have to scrutinize your other edits for similar, unreasonable edits? Int21h (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at his obituary, listed as ‘The New York Times Company’ under ‘External Links’, you'll see that it was published on 25 September 1996, to the 28th date can't be right. I also have a better source: the Social Security Death Index (see here). Please don't assume that edits are unreasonable just because they're in conflict with a reliable source; it could be wrong. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


I've initiated a discussion at Template talk:Current#Reworking this template. —David Levy 17:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Esszet,
    Apropos your working draft items for an RfC, could you push it into an independent section, or do you mind mind if I sectioned it off?
    I suspect it may be desirable to discuss the RfC headnote for a period, since there are (so far) two proposed paths, in addition to yet-to-be-found other outcomes for changing {{current}}. Perhaps making those two paths explicit would be useful, as well as calling out for additional suggestions that may be a source of movement on the topic..
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I grant that a person is not "a current event", but we should have a template that deals with 'hot' topics. Since there is none, "current" seems like the most appropriate for the moment. If you are trying to introduce a new template, it should be easy to use in all sorts of articles, not just those dealing with an event or death. El Alternativo (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a template for people affected by current events: {{Current person}}. And as for whether we should have a template that deals with ‘hot’ topics, see Template talk:current. Esszet (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived references[edit]

I've reverted your removal of the archived reference URL at Guy Paul Morin. One never knows when an original URL will disappear. Having the archive available is always a good idea and shouldn't be removed. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:King crimson – islands.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:King crimson – islands.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone replaced it with a slightly cropped version, so the version I uploaded can be nominated for deletion straight away. Esszet (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Shades of Deep Purple[edit]

You reverted an edit for the album cover writing "The US version may well have come out first, but since they're a British band, the original British version should take precedence." This sounds odd and new to me. Can you validate your claim with some MoS discussion or rule? To my knowledge the cover of the first edition is what should be on top of the infobox, because it is the "original cover". Deep Purple were a British band signed to an American label which released the album way before EMI, so Tetragrammaton cover should be on top. Lewismaster (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, in rare cases, the original cover is left out entirely; on Led Zeppelin, for example, the ‘original’ cover, which had the band's name in turquoise instead of orange (see the ‘Artwork’ section), isn't there at all (probably for fair use reasons – it's not hard with the more familiar cover there to ‘practically convey with words alone’ what it looks like), but the point is that the original cover isn't necessarily the main (or in this case, even the official) cover, and so the original cover shouldn't necessarily receive precedence over the main cover. For an example of a very similar principle, see Out of Our Heads; the UK version, which was released several months after the US version, which, unlike that of Shades, is significantly different from the UK version, takes precedence in the entire article. I realize that that's not what the template documentation says; it should probably be changed to ‘main cover’, ‘official cover’, ‘most familiar cover’, or something like that. Esszet (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Shades of Deep Purple the US cover is not only the first published, but also the the best known one. The album sold very well in the US and was ignored in the UK. It is also in the inset of the Remasterd Edition cover by the British EMI and for all these reasons it should be considered the main cover. Lewismaster (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears as though some versions of the CD reissue use the US cover in the insert; go to and search ‘Shades of Deep Purple’, and you'll see that others, including the first one that comes up, use the British cover. In any case, the official Deep Purple website uses the British cover, so that should be the main cover here. Esszet (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked for more opinions on the matter at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. The discussion can continue there. Lewismaster (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit to the page Phil Collins, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Spanish pronouns[edit]

Here are my answers. However, as I tell everybody, discussions about one particular article are better placed in the talk page for that article; in that way, many more editors can have their say.

1. Do you disambiguate it with a sí or para sí and thus get things like Se lo hizo a sí and Se lo mantenía para sí? -- It's common to do so, though not obligatory.

2. When you have multiple direct or indirect object pronouns, do you have to repeat the verb every time a new one is used? Thus, is it Me y te gusta or Me gusta y te gusta? -- You have to repeat the verb, Spanish is not ready to have different pronouns with the same function for just one verb.

3. I know that emphasis is placed on personal direct object pronouns by repeating them with personal a and putting the a + disjunctive construction wherever you want to place emphasis: Me ama a mí, Te necesito a ti, etc. But do you use a when placing emphasis on non-personal direct object pronouns, and if not, do you just use the disjunctive form? Thus, is it Se los di ellos a él? -- You mean ellos as a direct object? No, él/ella/ellos... when not preceded by any preposition can only work as sentence subjects. In this case the los pronoun cannot be duplicated by a stressed pronoun, only by a noun.

4. I know that in perfect infinitives, pronouns get added to haber: haberme visto, habértelos dado, etc. Does the same rule apply to ser in passive infinitives when used with indirect object pronouns? Thus, is it sernos dado, serme guardado, and, if you want to get really fancy, haberte sido mostrado, etc.? -- It is possible, though virtually absent from everyday speech.

5. I found a site that says that in formal writing and oratory, object pronouns can be added as enclitics to pretty much any verb form you want to attach them to: thus, to use the examples that the site uses, propúseme, siéntese, etc. Is that true? If so: a) Do the normal rules for encliticization apply (i.e. verb-final "-s" drops before nos and se (thus Tú dánoslo, Nosotros dámoselo, etc.) and I'm guessing verb-final "‑n" drops before nos as well (thus Ellos dánoslo, Ellas viéronos, etc.))?b) In compound tenses, what do the enclitics attach to? Do you say Helo visto or He vístolo, Fueme dado or Fue dádome, etc.? -- siéntese (usted) as an imperative of sentarse is normal. In verbal forms other than infinitive, gerund and imperative, such as in propúseme, enclitics are just an unusual feature of literary/poetic styles. Verbal -s drops in forms such as démonos = demos + nos. Verbal -n never drops: dieronnos = nos dieron. --Jotamar (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


I noticed your recent edit to 2016 Gulshan attack does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Spartacus! (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Esszet. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop deleting[edit]

Hello User Esszet

Please stop deleting the whole content of 2016: fortieth anniversarysection on this article and have a look on this carefully. I have also asked opinion of some other users and admins. So be patient and enjoy reading and editing on Wikipedia. Thanks.MetalS-W (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Can it be rewritten to be neutral? There obviously has to be a "Reception" section, but there's no need for an entire section dedicated to people's views on the album on its fortieth anniversary. It is thus pretty much inherently non-neutral and definitely unnecessary, so I think its lack of a NPOV is a good reason to delete it. Esszet (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)