User talk:Tayste

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

Archive 1[edit]

See Archive 1. Tayste (edits) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Generalized linear mixed model[edit]

I do not believe it is refspam, and I explicitly asked to discuss on Talk first. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Kindly follow that. SolidPhase (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are starting an edit war for which an admin may temporarily block you. Yes, we will discuss your edits on the talk page. @Qwfp: has asked you to add text to the article that would make your added reference relevant. Please do that. Until then, the reference alone does not belong. Tayste (edits) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Re [1]: Both "1000" and "1,000" are written in that section. I don't care which is used but inconsistency isn't desired (as stated in the MOS section in my comment). Plus you gave no reason why "standard deviation" shouldn't be linked or why ".3" is preferred, again contrary to the MOS. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too hasty and careless; I shall have a closer look. Tayste (edits) 23:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for copy editing that article. —Mrwojo (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


I object to your removal of redlinks. Already having an article is not a test of notability. See also WP:Red links. Rmhermen (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's true that not every notable subject has its article yet, tho I suspect most of them do when it comes to notable varieties of biscuit. Notability is one of the criteria for the existence of an article, so it seems to me to be a reasonable test of notability in this context. The occassional red link to an article title that clearly satisfies that criterion would be acceptable, but not the large number of red links that were at Cookie.
Note that according What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." So, I think that a comprehensive list of all varieties is unencyclopaedic. An article about cookies in general shouldn't be burdened with such long lists. Leave that to the list of cookies article. Tayste (edits) 03:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]

You have just removed an annotation in the See also section of Tabetha S. Boyajian with the edit summary "should only include wikilinks to other wikipedia articles". This is usually the case but not always required or appropriate as MOS:SEEALSO says: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent." Clearly the OP's use of a subheading for links sharing the same clarification is reasonable here. I will restore it. --Mirokado (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see it was intended as a subheading, rather than an item. Still, with such a short list, such a subheading seems unnecessary to me. If the reasons for including the seealsos needs elaboration, that can be done more clearly by adding text within each line after the wikilink. Tayste (edits) 02:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)