User talk:Peacedance

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

First of all, "Welcome to Wikipedia!"

We were both editing the same page. This rarely ever happens. I am the original author of it's current revision, Cpiral. I'd just spent a half-hour improving my old version when the edit conflict occurred. I over-rode your edits. I am sorry. Please accept my apologies.

If you will look at the history of the page, you'll see how little activity that section has received by other editors, like yourself. I feel safe and confident to say, then, "It's all yours." CpiralCpiral 03:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday[edit]

Thanks for fixing that. Your contributions and your ability to ask questions instead of editing blindly are commended. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 4twenty42o (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Matilda of Great Britain[edit]

This article has been expanded. I hope this answers your concerns.--85.226.43.158 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 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:
  • |incorporated]] as the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with Wright as [resident and Bergh and Gerry as vice-presidents.<ref name="response"/> Three other members of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tyrant 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:
  • [[Category:Positions of authority]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Peacedance! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:50, Thursday, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Caliphate/Caliph order contradicting or confusing[edit]

I have fixed the problem with Talk:Muawiyah I. It was caused by people quoting citations without adding <references/>. This does not cause any problems in the short-term, but when discussion moves on, it does, as you noticed.

I have answered your question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Précieuses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minority (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) 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disk (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) 09:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phylogenetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy (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) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Serpent Column changes[edit]

I have suggested a reworking of Serpent Column article, to which you made significant contributions. If you'd like to comment on my proposed changes, I'd welcome the input on the article's talk page. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor 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:
  • ; his great-grandson Charles V was the last emperor to be crowned, but this was done in [[Bologna]]). He opposed an [[imperial reform]] at that time and was barely able to prevent the prince-electors

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Montanabw's talk page.

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thank you for your improvement to the Modern dance page! FourViolas (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Isabelle Eberhardt[edit]

Hi Peacedance, and thanks for your recent edits to Isabelle Eberhardt. While the minor information you have added to the article is very interesting, it is unfortunately un-referenced. Isabelle Eberhardt is currently a good article. It is a requirement that good articles do not have un-referenced information, and when I nominate the article for featured article status in the future, I will be required to remove any un-referenced information, such as your additions. Just thought i'd let you know this for future reference, and also to see if you can find a source for this new information so it won't be removed. If you can't find a source i'll search for one myself, though if I can't find one unfortunately i'll have to remove this information before I nominate the article for featured status. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Freikorp, thank you for your polite and pleasant note about this issue (a model of civility on an internet site that is definitely not known for it!)
I do have a source for my statements, and confess, was just being a bit lazy and hoping no one would notice! I will put the source in shortly. Just FYI, it is a book by Lesley Blanch, The Wider Shores of Love, published in 1954, and re-"marketed" in 1995. This is not written as an academic book, but it appears that Ms. Blanch did intensive research, tracking down and interviewing people who knew Isabelle in Africa, referring to her journal, letters and other existing documents. (The book also has short-ish biographies of three other somewhat similar women.) If you have any doubts or concerns regarding this source, please let me know.
If all Wikipedia pages on interesting women had advocates, as you are for Isabelle, we would be in much better shape! Good luck with the featured article status. Peacedance (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Peacedance. I'm glad you've taken an interest in this article. If you could add those references sometime that would be great. I've got a bit more work to do on this article before it gets ready to be nominated for featured status (and i've got plenty of other things i want to work on first) but hopefully it will happen eventually. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Freikorp, citations all done. If there is a particular topic or area that you feel could use attention, please let me know, in case I have it or run across it. Good luck on all those other projects! Peacedance (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think the only section that needs considerable improvement is the legacy section. The list of works inspired by Ebernardt is pretty comprehensive (I think anyway) but her impact elsewhere could be greatly expanded. I'm sure there's plenty of sources commenting on her as some kind of feminist icon or female pioneer. Anyway that's the issue i'll eventually work on myself; if you can flesh it out in the meantime that would be more appreciated. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:14, 31 October 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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pope Gregory I 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:
  • from a more ancient perfect, egrēgora, "roused from sleep", of egeirein, "to awaken someone." {{cite book |first=Joseph Henry|last=Thayer|title=Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament being

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Nicholas may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • to 315, St. Nicholas lived there and came as a pilgrim to visit the [[Holy Sepulchre]], []Golgotha]], [[Bethlehem]], and many other sites in the Holy Land. The Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military strategy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tactics (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) 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gribeauval system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Core (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) 10:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renata of Lorraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William of Orange (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) 10:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spike and Tyke (characters), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canine (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) 10:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quiet Please!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nemesis (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) 12:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Headlands and bays 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:
  • bands of stronger, or more resistant rocks, such as [[chalk]], [[limestone]], and [[granite]]), which form a headland or [[peninsula]]. [[Refraction of waves]] occurs on headlands concentrating

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annie Larsen affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarify (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) 12:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Stress-strain analysis[edit]

Hi Peacedance! You amended Stress-strain analysis to insert the first sentence from Stress (mechanics). My view is that this strategy is never used on Wikipedia - it is sufficient to Wikilink to the articles on stress and strain. Any reader who is uncertain about the meaning of any word or expression is able to activate the Wikilink and read a comprehensive explanation of that word or expression. Dolphin (t) 10:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dolphin (t). Thanks for your polite comment. I actually have read the opposite somewhere in the MoS, that the user should *not* have to go to another page to get a basic definition of a generally unknown term. I will dig it up if you wish, but it was a question I had sought out overtly, as it was something that bothered me. When I am reading a Wikipedia article, I like to be able to read the introduction (at least) and get a basic idea of what is going on without clicking back and forth.
I have found many articles in which an uncommon term is not defined, so I link, and that term includes in its definition an uncommon term, so I link, and so on, indefinitely, and the first topic is never really is clear!! (I can dig up plenty of those examples, if you would like!) This is commonly true of fairly technical topics, but also not infrequent on basic ones. Having my PhD in sociology, I am not sure how a general reader would make any use of these articles. Thus, I believe the definition of any technical term critical to the understanding of the topic should be on the page, and the link of course as well for further understanding, and/or additional information.
My "thing" in editing Wikipedia is clarity, and ease of reading, particularly in introductions. However if this issue has been the subject of a new consensus, I will of course bow to the will of the majority. I imagine this has probably been discussed at least once, somewhere. Do you have any references, or is this a personal/generally observed belief? It does seem logical given the nature of Wikipedia, but I have found it is just not always practical. Thoughts? Peacedance (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Perhaps the best guidelines on this subject are to be found at WP:Make technical articles understandable.
On the subject of the current lead in Stress-strain analysis there appear to be two separate issues: firstly, whether it is desirable to define or explain the terms "stress" and "strain" in the lead (as opposed to merely blue linking); and secondly, whether the text that forms the first sentence in the article Stress (mechanics) is a suitable definition or explanation of these terms for readers new to the subject. I'm comfortable with the idea that if I want explanation of something that is blue linked I must click on the blue link and divert to another page.
  • Firstly, Wikipedia makes extensive use of blue linking to articles. Readers can choose to divert to the linked page, or they can choose to ignore the blue link and continue reading as though the blue link wasn't there. Readers who don't feel comfortable with a new term might be a little annoyed that they have to divert to another page to find an explanation when they would prefer to see the term explained without having to divert, but readers who are comfortable with the term would be glad that they can read on without having to navigate through a sea of peripheral explanations.
  • Secondly, I think any reader who is not comfortable with the term "stress" will find the following expression most unhelpful: In continuum mechanics, stress is a physical quantity ... Readers who aren't comfortable with the word "stress" are unlikely to be comfortable with the expressions "continuum mechanics" and "physical quantity". If the word "stress" is to be clarified in the lead of Stress-strain analysis for readers who aren't comfortable with it, I think something like Stress is the force applied to a component, divided by the cross-sectional area of the component would be more appropriate for such readers.
I also think the article Stress (mechanics) could do with some fine-tuning in the lead because its opening sentence does not provide clarity for readers who are trying to put one foot on the bottom rung of the ladder to understanding the concept of stress.
You have alluded to strings of articles in which it is necessary to divert to another article, and then another, and then another without getting an understanding of the first. (I would be interested to see an example of such a string of articles.) If your proposed method of dealing with this problem is to work in this situation, how much peripheral explanation would be required in the first article? (rhetorical question.)
I will be interested to read what you think of all this. Dolphin (t) 06:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin (t), apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
I don't diagree with you on the points about the definition being overly complex.  I was mentally "done" with WP that day, so I just popped that in from the linked article so some kind of definition was there.  So, edit away if you wish, I certainly won't be offended. 
I also found the source of our conflict, two different instructions on two different pages on the MOS. From your page about making technical articles clear:

For highly specialised topics where it is difficult to give an overview in terms with which a general audience will be familiar, it may be reasonable to assume some background knowledge in the lead, while linking to the prerequisites required to understand it.

And, from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined.

I don't think that by providing *brief* definitions, it will hinder those looking for a more technical explanation.  It is very easy to jump down to the more complex stuff. I just would rather be able to get an idea of it all at once, rather than having to go back and forth all the time. And I think this is stressed in several places where it says the introduction should stand alone. I don't think that one has to provide more than one level of definition, as long as it is essentially clear. I haven't had time to find some examples yet, but I will try to do that shortly. (But I do remember that sometimes the mathematicians and the linguists make me crazy!)
How do you feel about this compromise? Peacedance (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom and Jerry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fraidy Cat (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) 11:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simple harmonic motion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Displacement (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) 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)