Real-life workload: 8
- 1 = no work pressure
- 5 = middling
- > 5 = please don't expect much
- 10 = frenzied
- 11 = Up to 11
Some baklava for you!
|Thank you for your help in the List of online encyclopedias article. This is my first time trying out the WikiLove extension. Enjoy! Sole Flounder (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)|
- Thanks, Sole Flounder! I've never had baklava in my life, but I'd like to give it a try one day :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of online encyclopedias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (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.
- Where would I be without you, DPL bot? Cheers mate! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there, Tony1! Sorry for my late reply, I've been rather busy lately, having only time to do some minor fixes and ref work. But when it comes to centralized discussion, I think WP:MOSLINK would be the correct place for linking related matters. I mean, if you see WP:MOS, it only has one single sentence when it comes to linking; WP:MOSLINK has a whole page discussing with the different nuances and specific cases. For example, I am interested in the linking guidelines, but I haven't watchlisted WP:MOS personally as it covers a whole deal of other things but hardly linking. I bet many other editors neither do, as shown by the comment by Jnestorius.
- I'll give my response at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed revision: links within quotes soon in the following days, but basically I am opposed to the matter raised in the discussion, though. In my opinion, adding wikilinks to quotes is something that intervenes the original statement of the author; the destination article might present ideas that are totally different from the ideas that the author was talking about, or in the worst cases might present original research. For example, an inventor of something back in the year X might mistakenly be linked to the conceptions of the same thing in the future — in the year Y, let's say. Moreover, when it comes to piped links, the original say of the author could be linked to something totally different. Besides, if the object we want to wikilink in the quote doesn't exist in the rest of ther article, is it really worth of wikilinking? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jayaguru-Shishya, Hi! Since you were uncertain about the reference cited in that article about the Yemenite Jewish custom, I have explained the sources in the Talk-Page there. The books are in Hebrew. I have also cited a reference to the most recent edition of this book, and given a link to the book at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there, Davidbena. The current source seems to be a list of Hebrew books, not the book. Moreover, I cannot find the ISBN from any database. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jayaguru-Shishya, I have the book in my library. Would you like me to scan the Hebrew pages for you?Davidbena (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here, too, is a web-site that discusses the book. Halichot Teiman.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Kosher locust#The Yemenite custom and Citation; to be continued there
No revert instead add you comment after the latest revert
See . Any further breaches let me know.
However for the sake of harmony do not revert EEng's most recent revert, because what you are trying to restore is now out of date. Instead "Add your comments at bottom if you wish". You may also add bullet points to the links to the diffs (as displayed in the relevant history lines) directly before you comments if you wish to show that you edits have been refactored. -- PBS (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, PBS is confused, No one refactored J-G's comments, but rather he refactored others' edits while inserting his own, and that refactoring, by J-G, was reverted with an invitation for him to do exactly what PBS is now also telling him to do: add his or her own comments without tampering with others'. Full explanation here . EEng 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention [[User:PBS|PBS]. You are right, the discussion has moved on in such an extent that it'd be out of date to restore the preceding edits. Instead, I will leave an updated reply to the Talk Page, including both the original points that I made, as well as my opinions considering the later occurrences.
- With user EEng, I agree that nobody has refactored my comments; instead user EEng has removed my comments twice. If one reads the post above carefully, neither does it say that I would have refactored anybody's comments; it merely talks about restoring the original comments that were refactored. By all means, time has passed on, and I am not going to restore the original ones. Just to bear in mind, changing the preceding comments that have already been replied to, it makes it impossible for the new Talk Page participants to follow up the discussion, and it might even make the earlier comments look nonsensical as the original post were the comments were referring to have been altered.
- Summa summarum: "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (WP:TALKNO) I'm expecting that any further conversation will take place at the appropirate Talk Page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jayaguru-Shishya you have made you point several times in sevearl different places, including on my talk page. The conversation has degenerated into bickering. Let the issue lie and get on with something more constructive. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)