- 1 Barnstar
- 2 A barnstar for you!
- 3 DYK for Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014
- 4 A barnstar for you!
- 5 A barnstar for you!
- 6 Moving a page without consultation is a bad move.
- 7 Proposals for a Palestinian state
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for July 8
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for July 15
- 10 Keturah's sons
- 11 Slavery article
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|For a great deal of hard work to improve articles on a wide range of topics. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Editor's Barnstar|
|Thanks for your work on the La Trobes or Latrobes. Nice to see the articles developing. Victuallers (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)|
DYK for Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014
|On 9 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, which resolved the 2013 U.S. government shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, may just be kicking the can down the road? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
A barnstar for you!
|The Writer's Barnstar|
|Dear Ewawer, thank you for your great job in expanding the article I created about mixed bathing. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Writer's Barnstar|
|Thanks for your awesome work on the Bikini article. I have been looking for a good copyeditor for so long now, that I find it hard to believe that the article finally has someone of you caliber to work on it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)|
Moving a page without consultation is a bad move.
Ewawer, you appear to be a busy editor doing good work, but some edits should be based on consultation. Renaming/moving articles is one of those.
Gun politics in Australia is as you correctly discerned a clunky title but it correctly reflected the thrust of the article and the fact that it is a contentious topic plagued with activists and activist researchers. It also reflects the practice on Wikipedia that these articles are so named for the following countries: Australia · Brazil · Canada · Czech Republic · Finland · France · Germany · Honduras · India · Italy · Ireland · Jamaica · Kuwait · Mexico · New Zealand · Norway · Pakistan · Philippines · South Africa · Switzerland · Ukraine · United Kingdom · United States
- In some countries, notably the US, it is more appropriate to use the description "gun politics". But in the case of Australia gun control is not really a contentious political issue. I understand that it is part of a series, but that is no reason to contort the wording of the article to correspond with the social issues and outlook in another country. Perhaps they should all be changed to "gun laws" which is more neutral. Having said that, I have no issue with a change back to "gun politics". It was just an attempt to make the article more relevant to the actual attitudes in the country. Enthusiast (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is a normal viewpoint, but not the whole picture. There are a couple of million Australians in households that own and use firearms, and they have had the fist of the law pressed to their noses for 20 years, their normal business greatly hampered by deliberate obstruction, plus self-righteous opprobrium from a chattering class who act as though people should not have different opinions to theirs. Australians have 800,000 gun licenses, 150,000 members in their largest organisation, formed a shooters' political party contesting elections in six states and federally, and are electing members to governments. This is not 'forcing the article to correspond to the social issues and outlook in another country' but dealing with Australian politics. The article was named politics, tagged as politics, and describes politics.
- You are an awesome and fearless copy-editor and could be very good for this article but please, use the article Talk page to propose significant changes like moves, and to work with others. ChrisPer (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposals for a Palestinian state
Can you please see the talk page? I have some issues with your edit. nableezy - 23:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
|The Teamwork Barnstar|
|Thank you for the professional teamwork! Miraclexix (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concubinage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lover (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Handmaiden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarai (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.
Hi. I reverted your recent edit to the article on Keturah. The names of Keturah's sons are already mentioned in the body of the article, and there was no need to repeat them in the lead section. A lead section should be concise (see WP:LEAD); it doesn't need to (and, indeed, generally should not) include details that are not important for a reader who is only looking for a superficial, high-level understanding of what the subject is about. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of moving chattel slavery out of that section, or else using that as an intro to that section or yo move it to the lede. I left it like that for others, like you, to make a suggestion. Enthusiast (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)