User talk:SUM1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:SpikeballUnion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good work![edit]

Keep up the good work, such as your creation of the Nambya language stub. ~ Rob13Talk 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gyula Peidl[edit]

Thanks for expanding Gyula Peidl article. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My pleasure. SpikeballUnion 14:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligent work. As I see, there are also quality articles about other Hungarian prime ministers in the interwar period, e.g. István Friedrich, Károly Huszár or István Bethlen. I would be grateful if you could translate those into English in the future. Unfortunately I do not speak Spanish. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice. I'm interested to do so when I get time. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Norden1990 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

István Friedrich[edit]

Wow, thank you very much! Nice work, I'm really grateful. Just a remark: currently the references do not point out to publications. Could you translate the "Bibliografía" section too? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just translated and added the Bibliography section now. Thanks for reminding me. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Translations of the other articles should come soon when I get the time. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I may do a translation of the Aster Revolution, seeing as the Spanish article has "good" status rather than the Hungarian one, confusingly. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Hungarian Barnstar of National Merit Hungarian Barnstar of National Merit
For all of your excellent translation work about Hungarian politicians. Wear it with pride. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran's Population[edit]

Hi, I'm unable to edit the Iran page as it's protected. Population count needs correcting since the latest National Census. It gives a count for Nov 2016 and a projection for March 2017. Wiki page currently overstates at 82.8 million. I'd appreciate you editing it, thanks.

https://financialtribune.com/articles/domestic-economy/61421/national-census-preliminary-results-released-irans-urban-population IR94025190 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I made the correction yesterday. SpikeballUnion (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion[edit]

Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Global wind patterns[edit]

I don't understand why Global wind patterns was deleted. I see nothing wrong with the grammar and because it is an overview article, sources can be found in the linked articles. Perhaps it could be combined with Prevailing winds, but I don't see an easy way to do it. If anything, it should be linked to Atmospheric circulation which is closer, but is rather theoretical and does not emphasize the surface winds. Prevaling Winds is disorganized, hides importand facts inside details and misses or obscures the 30-degree width of the belts, the parallelism of northern and southern hemispheres, the annual north-south movement, the relation between the belts and doldrums/horse latitudes, the relation between monsoons and land and sea breezes, mixes surface winds with the upper-level counter-circulation in the cells and misses the relation between air and ocean circulation. Deletion removes useful information for no purpose. I think Global wind patterns is a good overview and should to be restored.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of Global wind patterns, it was just a worse version of the Prevailing winds article. It had no sources, no layout and thorough poor grammar and spacing. It's not the norm to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia. If you wanted an "overview article", you would create an article named "Outline of prevailing winds" as is the norm on Wikipedia. However, it's not necessary for such a small article as Prevailing winds. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Prevailing winds is rated as a good article, so you might want to talk to the people who brought it to that rating if you disagree. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain why the grammar is poor? Perhaps my grammar is so poor that I did not notice. Why is it a worse version? As noted above, it has more basic information and is expressed more clearly. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
It did not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style in any way, shape or form. But this was by far not the most important issue. You have yet to address the fact that you've attempted to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia for an article that is already rated good and is in no need of a separate article glossing over its content. If you don't like the Prevailing winds article or feel it's missing something, edit it. This is what Wikipedia encourages. Be sure to keep it meeting the good article criteria it's achieved, though. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find anything in the Manual of Style that the article violated (??). It was not an attempt to simplify Prevailing winds. I do not know of any reason to thing the article was bad. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't take long to find that your article failed to follow Section organisation, Text formatting - Names and titles, all of Lead section since it had no lead section, etc. If you've read at least some Wikipedia articles, you'll know that Global wind patterns doesn't follow any established structure and makes it hard for the reader to follow for this very reason. There's a reason articles have a standardised structure on Wikipedia. Also, "references for this summary article can be found in the linked articles" is not an appropriate excuse on Wikipedia for an article having no sources. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Liaison (French)#Recent move[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liaison (French)#Recent move. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Grand Funk Railroad[edit]

Hello SpikeballUnion, I removed a disruptive IP edit that effected the maintenance templates you had placed, I just wanted to give you a heads-up, you might want to have a look and see if any of the issues have been resolved, Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Garam shah lā garam shah[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. SpikeballUnion, thanks for creating Garam shah lā garam shah!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Map of zones of Ethiopia.svg[edit]

Thank you for making this beautiful map. Can you please add the label for Doolo/Dollo Zone? Thanks! Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out that mistake. I also made the colours brighter so they're easier to differentiate. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, SUM1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

Sorry, i had to revert your edits because you deleted some other users messages.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it was an edit conflict that didn't show up to me, because I only posted my vote. SUM1 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah i understand, it happens to me too. My goal was just to let you know why i rollbacked your two edits. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tdl1060 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This was not necessary. Refer to discussion above. SUM1 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Torp (architecture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorpe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palestinians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian exodus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Politics of Israel[edit]

Please revert your introduction of incorrect grammar into this article. "politics" is a singular noun and should not be treated as a plural. Thanks, Number 57 21:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Please watch what you're reverting. If you had an issue with the grammatical number of "politics" (which you do, since you've reverted a bunch of other people over the same thing), then revert only that. You restored incorrect bolding, missing links and double spaces. Now, on the issue of "politics", I edited in line with several other "Politics of ..." articles (Politics of Belgium, Politics of Canada, Politics of the Netherlands, etc.). If you disagree with that so strongly, then go ahead and change "are" to "is", since the dictionary consensus is in your favour. SUM1 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the incorrect grammatical changes – it's not a question of disagreeing strongly, it's a simple question of what's right and wrong when it comes to English grammar. I also don't see any issues with the bolding, although I'm guessing you must be one of the stickers that insists the bolded text must match the article title exactly (which in practice, isn't the case across much of Wikipedia).
I'd be interested to know where I've reverted other people on the same thing. This isn't a very common mistake and I don't recall seeing many other editors making it. Number 57 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: Then I accept that the grammatical number of "politics" was wrong, however you proceed to go back on the "right-wrong vs. opinion" logic by saying that it doesn't matter if the bold text matches the title because it isn't the case much "in practice". That doesn't matter. Wherever I see it, I fix it, because it's wrong. I realise that if the text redirects to the article, it can be bold, but why forfeit standardisation? Virtually every "Politics of ..." article begins with "The politics of [country]". That's something I don't understand why you insisted on changing. And, on a third note, I added beneficial links and removed double spaces, which you reverted. On the topic of you reverting other people, I mistook one revert for this, but you did revert someone here. SUM1 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
So one other person is a bunch? Clearly plurals are not your strong point ;) I reverted the whole set of changes because (a) I didn't see the removal of double spaces due to the lack of contrast on my screen, and I didn't feel the internal links you added were beneficial. Number 57 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That remark was completely unnecessary. I just told you I mistook one revert you made being for "politics" when it wasn't and was ready to accept that. Be civil. SUM1 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Both the links I added help the unfamiliar user understand the article. SUM1 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)