User talk:Uzume

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

Java articles[edit]

Thanks for the work on the Java articles. I had a lot of the cleanup you've done on my "to do" list. – Doug Bell talkcontrib 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

References columns width[edit]

I've undone the change you made here to the width of the columns in Apple Inc.'s references section. For those of use whose displays are less than 1500 pixels across (i.e. most editors), this change reduced a list of over a hundred references to a single column. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

KVIrc[edit]

Hi! I've noticed that you have redirected the KVIrc page to the comparison of IRC clients. For sure it's better than before :) I have worked on the article in my sandbox in order to add verifiability and notability sources. I have also started some discussions about the previous removal here. The user that removed the page in the first instance doesn't seem to be very active so I can't get much feedback. Would you mind taking a look and eventually commenting on this ? Pragma2 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I already noticed your sandbox and was actually considering adding content to it already. I shall take a closer look at the comment thread you mention. Thanks for stopping by. Uzume (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Text no longer wrapping in {{Beyond the Standard Model}}[edit]

I think this might be related to your recent changes to {{Sidebar}} or {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. Is there a change we need to make in {{Beyond the Standard Model}} to have this work correctly? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I spent time and looked at this (including previewing that template with various sandbox version of the sidebars, etc.) but I am unable to figure out what text was wrapping before. None of the edits I did to those templates was related to wrapping. {{sidebar}} states in the documentation that nowrap is turned on by default and on the talk page there is some discussion about someone adding an option to turn that off and how dubious it was to have it on by default to begin with. Maybe I cannot see it due to my browser or screen size or something but perhaps you can try: |wraplinks=true. I hope this helps. Uzume (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I didn't mean to cause you so much effort; I was hoping you would just know the answer. I'll see if I can reproduce the wrapping by going back to the state of the templates on the day I worked the edit request. If anything interesting comes out of it, I'll let you know. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Uzume. You have new messages at Template_talk:Sidebar#Recent_changes.
Message added 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: ActivePerl[edit]

Hello Uzume. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ActivePerl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think this move could do with some more discussion. Could you file a requested move? Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User pages[edit]

Hi, Uzume. Please don't edit other people's user pages, like you did on User:Dajnel. User's are generally allowed full discretion over how to format and organize their pages, so you shouldn't be altering templates or formatting on them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean User:Danjel since there is no such page User:Dajnel. The user is free to update/revert anything there of course. Uzume (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did mean Danjel. Again, though, you shouldn't under any circumstances be editing another user's user page, unless it's to remove vandalism, to fix some other policy problem (like removing copyright violations), or if they specifically ask you. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you should not revert any edits there then unless you specifically know the edit was not asked for by the user either since reverts are technically an edit too. Uzume (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of evidence on the user talk page, a revert is correct...especially since I could tell that you were "fixing" the way they had formatted their external links. Is there some reason why you're fighting on this issue? All you need to do is not edit other user's user pages. I don't see the harm in this widely accepted prohibition. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I was not trying to fix any external links. Rather I was trying to update/disambiguate .NET Messenger Service to Microsoft Messenger service since the article moved (based on Microsoft's change in the naming of the service). I am not sure why you think I am "fighting" anything. I was only responding to your comments on my talk page. I am well aware of Wikipedia policy having been around more than four years before you even. WP:UP#OWN (and more specifically WP:NOBAN) say nothing about one should not edit other user's pages and in fact says it can be done if the edit is considered helpful as I felt mine was. Uzume (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nested virtualization[edit]

Hello, Uzmue

I wanted to drop you a note about this edit but hope this note don't turn out impolite, because I am in a hurry. I am afraid your edit does not correspond to our rules and policies. Let's see why.

First, Search engine test is one the most famous invalid reasons for an edit. Number of Google hits (or Bing hits) for a search results does not replace the need for a source. If there are valid results there, it is you who should "take your pick"; and please be careful that your pick conforms to the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Remember, contents without a reliable source are challenged or removed. That is our policy.

Second, "there is a redirect to it". Given the fact that the redirect is created by none other than you yourself, a bad redirect does not satisfy the source requirements nor warrants adding contents to the wrong article. This problem is easy to fix: Contribute the contents to the correct article (with source, of course) and then change the redirect to that article.

Finally, have you studied WP:BRD or WP:EW articles? Please do so.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the edit does not correspond to our rules and policies (though I agree a source would be useful not all contributions require one, e.g., I do not need to cite grammar to contribute to an article's grammatical accuracy; in many cases it does not make sense). For one, neither of us has entered into WP:EW (and yes, I have read and even helped participate the in development of those--you will note my earliest edits on this account go back to early 2004) territory yet. WP:BRD recommends ones own bold edit over just reverting and further discussing on the article's talk page--neither of which either of us did. I did no worse (nor admittedly better) as I just reverted your edit. You admit you are hurried but I find the worst edits are made by people in a hurry (and the most common are reversions as they are "easy" but not necessarily right; you probably should have just added {{Citation needed}} instead of reverting and removing the content). In any event, as per WP:BRD, I have now found a potentially "Most Interested Person". In that light, I recommend you do what you should have done in the first place and move such discussion to the article's talk page (if you are not interested in the topic you shouldn't make edits including reversions unless you believe them to be vandalism or spam, etc.). I have taken the initiative: Talk:Virtualization#Nested virtualization. Thanks, Uzume (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. My friend, if I wanted to accuse you of edit warring or violation of BRD, I would have said so directly. I didn't say so; hence, I believe you didn't edit-war.
I also agree that not everything needs a source. WP:V has elaborated on what needs source and what doesn't. A far-fetched claim like "nested virtualization" definitely needs source. (Virtual machine inside virtual machine? Seriously...)
As for the use of {{citation needed}}, I go by Jimmy Wales' advice:

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

— Jimmy Wales, Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If you agree not everything needs a source why did you revert my contribution with the comment "All contributions need a source; a reliable one"? Yes, I agree. It seems far-fetched to need a source with regards to nested virtualization as it is just a virtual machine inside a virtual machine concept (recursion of the virtualization concept). That said, you reverted my contributions to the topic twice now so evidently you seem to want a source for that. If not, perhaps you can clarify why you have removed the content repeatedly.
As for Wales concept of aggressively removing obscure content, I am not in argument but it does not take much work to check if a topic is obscure enough to barely meet the "I heard it somewhere" level. With 27K+ hits on Google, I would say it is not obscure enough to meet the aggressive removal level. If that is the case then it should not be aggressively removed and becomes harder to determine if it should be removed and that is where reliable (and not just lots of) sources come into play. You will note even Jimmy Wales qualifies his assertion with further comment:

If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.

— Jimmy Wales, Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information
Based on this you can see his original comment was in reference to WP:BLP (where "libel" can come into play). Also notice this reply was in direct response to "Seems like perfectly straightforward collaborative editing to me, dividing labor between proofreading and doing the actual problem-fixing work." Jimmy appears to agree with this saying "There is nothing wrong with this". Blindly reverting the addition of content is just as bad as blindly adding content. I see your edits as prohibitive with respect to division of labor between contributing content, proofreading and providing reliable sources (which is part of "problem-fixing").
If you are not interested in the content enough to qualify as a "Most Interested Person", that only underscores the need for you to not remove content you have not researched. I have provided considerable substance for including "nested virtualization" content on the aforementioned article's talk page. If you still dispute or otherwise are interested in discussing the matter please reply there. If you are not, please revert your edit removing the content I added so I can continue to develop it without repeated reverts that makes me approach edit warring territory. Thank you. Uzume (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2013 (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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Miss Earth titleholders 2003[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Miss Earth titleholders 2003 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Miss Earth titleholders 2002[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Miss Earth titleholders 2002 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Miss Earth titleholders 2001[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Miss Earth titleholders 2001 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

rvv as edit summary[edit]

Hi, re this edit - please note that "rvv" is generally understood to mean "revert vandalism", and I'm pretty sure you weren't doing that. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Uzume. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Uzume. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Hindu–Arabic numerals) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Hindu–Arabic numerals, Uzume!

Wikipedia editor Legacypac just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've requested a history merge. Copy pasting an article to a new title is not the correct way. A move is the better action

To reply, leave a comment on Legacypac's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)