User talk:Regulov

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Regulov, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! RJFJR (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Aikido[edit]

Hi Regulov,

I notice that you recently replaced (and then reverted) the simplified character for "ki" in this article with the classical version. I'm just curious as to why you reverted your edits - did you find something in the style guidelines which encourages the use of simplified characters? I only ask because I've often thought of making the exact changes you did, since the simplified character is hardly ever used in the aikido community. If you've found a good reason not to use the older version of ki, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know - just in case I'm ever tempted to change the character myself!

Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree: in my experience, the word is usually written the old way, so the simpler form is jarring; I just didn't want to get into a thing. When, in the course of actually reading the page, I noted that a justification/explanation was implied in the Ki section by the link to Tōyō kanji, I decided not to get involved in something that seemed to have seen a bit of contention between people better informed than I am. The traditional form is apparently deprecated in modern Japanese; my own (very limited) language expertise comes from the Chinese side of things.
Regulov (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I see; thanks for the explanation. It could indeed open a rather large can of worms... Yunshui (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --LT910001 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Double spaces[edit]

There's no need to change double spaces after a period to single spaces, since both render exactly the same way on the finished page, as a single space. BMK (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Thank you. Regulov (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

TdF[edit]

Hello! The guy writing the text is an IP, let's not be too severe in the edit summaries correcting him, or we may wind up with no one writing. Face-grin.svg Mattsnow81 (Talk) 13:55, 10 July 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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summary[edit]

Information icon Hi there! 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 Aircraft carrier 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! - theWOLFchild 14:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Only 17 of your last 250 edits are accompanied by summaries. However, I also noticed that many of them appear to be relatively minor in nature, such as fixing commas and dashes. With those types of edits, you can check "minor" to indicate the edit as such. Otherwise, please explain your edits. Thank you - theWOLFchild 14:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Regulov. 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)

Wasn't my comma, but I know good prose when I see it[edit]

I apologize if I was too blunt. I did not write that section of the article, but I know good prose when I see it. The comma in that location maintains the vigorous pacing of the narrative as well as consistency with the rest of that article. The alternative would be to rewrite the entire article from scratch in the more concise American prose style: shorter sentences and simpler clause structure (i.e., less chaining of multiple dependent clauses). I think that might be the better alternative, but I'm not crazy enough about Magna Carta to do the heavy lifting myself. Plus that would irritate all the editors from England who would argue for sticking with British English. In general, it's more coherent to maintain an article in one style, then to delete punctuation willy-nilly and create a Frankenstein of an article which conveys a schizophrenic impression to readers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)