User talk:Quisqualis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:37, 2 November 2018

Unhelpful comments when you undo edits

If you are going to revert someone's edits, stating 'Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.' without indicating what edits you thought were unconstructive, and why would be polite. Your comment that 'Your edits appear to constitute vandalism' is not true and rather inflammatory, and your threat to remove my editing privileges is unwarranted. Please be considerate of other editors, and provide some notion of what it is you are actually talking about, rather than some boilerplate text that doesn't communicate anything. --75.73.1.89 (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I left that canned message for you. It was unwarranted, and arose from my efforts to spot vandals on the list of recent page changes. I believe I was justified in reverting your edit, as it needed a citation of a reliable source, but applying that warning template was a complete goof on my part. Feel free to remove it from your talk page, or if you ask me to, I'll remove it myself.
PS: when adding a new topic to a Talk page, you can use the "New section" tab rather than the "Edit this page" tab, so that the newer edit ends up at the bottom of the page.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question were left as an XML comment, invisible to readers, but not to other editors. If you read the actual comments, one of them clearly indicated that the comments were to provide a stub for later authoring and editing. Removing an invisible-to-reader-but-not-to-editor outline/stub is not helpful. It just makes collaboration between a group of people more difficult.--75.73.1.89 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Lisa. Not a bot, just a person :) Wanted to point out a small error on Steve Bannon page - in first section is states that he has been on National Security Council since January 29th, 2016 and it should be 2017.

Thank you for all you do!

I'll see if it is still there, and correct it.--Quisqualis (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Quisqualis what do i do now? Cuz i got no warned or nothing from anyone till now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theiod (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to White-winged vampire bat has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.

For help, take a look at the introduction.

The following is the log entry regarding this message: White-winged vampire bat was changed by Quisqualis (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.923884 on 2014-03-15T18:43:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Nothing wrong with the edit. False positive. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Quisqualis. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Sorry to see you received the errant vandalism warning above. I'd be happy to submit an error report on your behalf, if you haven't done so yourself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hematophagy 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:

phlebotomy is performed (in most insects by a specialized fine hollow "needle," the [proboscis]], which perforates skin and [[capillary|capillaries]]; in bats by sharp [[incisor|incisor teeth]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Baruch Samuel Blumberg page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDMOS

"The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity."

So there is nothing wrong with using easier terminology in the lead. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to differ. Simplicity is not simplemindedness, nor is is colloquial style. "Simple" means getting to the point without ambiguity. The MOS is not suggesting that vocabulary in the lead ought to be dumbed down to the point that it is intentionally vague.

The ref specifically says "Cirrhosis is a condition in which the liver slowly deteriorates and is unable to function normally due to chronic, or long lasting, injury."[1] And this sentence was in the next paragraph "Cirrhosis is characterized by the replacement of normal liver tissue by scar tissue." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but if cirrhosis cannot be defined in the opening sentence, then that sentence and its paragraph have failed to achieve their intent. WP should be about getting to the point, and then elaborating, not elaborating first, and finally getting to the point. The article was not very well constructed or written. I tried to improve it. You seem to disagree. And are you now suggesting that reading a WP article should involve reading the cited sources as one reads the article? From what I understand, an article needs to stand on its own, and not depend on external links for comprehensibility. That is WP policy.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about scar tissue was already in the lead a few sentences down. I have moved it up to be the second sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Quisqualis. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

This Talkback defies my logic. There are piles and piles of communication modalities on WP; why yet another? Which link gets me to the precious message? Why does an editor use this clunky and cumbersome method? These notices horrify me, because they appear to arrive late, and contain insufficient information to act expediciously (as do the undated alerts). Isn't WP suffering from chronically insufficient resources already?--Quisqualis (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

periods in/out of quotes

Saw some of your recent edits on the Stephen Miller (aide) page. I seriously doubt that you need to make the punctuation style in an article (e.g. periods inside or outside of quotes) match the punctuation style that is used in the cited source. It's going to be a lot of unnecessary effort, both for you and for anybody trying to review changes. Please forgive me if I'm missing something :) Proxyma (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was prompted by a reversion of my reversion of an edit which placed the periods outside of the quotes. That editor cited the relevant rule, which I consulted, and then found that I was correct in the first instance, though not for the reason I initially thought. I'm not the sort to research such a tedious issue, except as a matter of principle. Never want to go through that again, although I learned a lot about Stephen Miller (aide), perhaps more than I wanted to know.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image revert on Markhor

Hi, Quisqualis! Thanks for recognizing that the image I reverted was probably a better choice for the speciesbox. I was quickly trying to go through this IP vandal's random edits, and a few turned out to be questionable. – Rhinopias (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Rhinopias: I see where you removed the too-dark dwarf caiman photo. The current one is far better, especially as a thumb. Keep up your good work.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

I've noticed that you've been removing a lot of red links, usually with the argument (per edit summary) that they are red links. While some of these removals were fine and you made the correct choice, others were clear matches of WP:REDYES. Among others, this includes virtually all vertebrate species, many inverts, many plants, etc. The summary in the WP:RED editing guideline says: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject". Regards, RN1970 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there nothing wrong with creating a red link? I have had them promptly reversed.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends: As I mentioned, some of your red link removals were entirely right. Compare these

Bad red link: [2] – you were entirely correct in removing this red link. Being a DOD spokesman is not sufficient to make a person notable (WP:NOTABLE) and finding enough reliable sources for an article for him would be difficult. Starting articles for living people have particularly high requirements (WP:BLP).
Good red link: [3] – here we have a species where plenty of sources are available and it is likely that an article will be created in the future (in fact, I just did and it could easily be expanded as several additional WP:RS sources are available). This can be said about almost all vertebrate species, many (but not all) invertebrate species and many (but not all) plants.

You're obviously not required to do a search for WP:V sources every time you remove/add a red link; common sense is usually enough to judge its validity and even if misjudging (it happens to everyone) -- it's easy to correct. There are borderline cases where it is less obvious if a red link is valid. Unless it is a field I know I usually stay away from the borderlines, but that's my personal choice and you may prefer another approach in those. RN1970 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I seriously believed it was responsible editing to remove them, that the software had already detected them and added them to some list. I am happy to leave the valid ones. I redlinked the CEO of Bechtel Corporation and it was reversed immediately. Now I am curious why.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Echidna

added a link pointing to Streamlining

Epilachninae

added a link pointing to Predators

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the intrusion, but these ridiculous messages constantly appear on talk pages. Aside from the amusement value, why do they appear? Aren't they highlighting some sort of bug within WP software? (One would guess the bug would somehow be fixed by now.)--Quisqualis (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brendan Bechtel

Hello Quisqualis,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Brendan Bechtel for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bust my britches! Some kind saviour has stepped in to add a MSM citation. It's an article now. Many thanks to the saviour.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stevens–Johnson syndrome, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fas and Ligation. 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) 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sunset (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Church. 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) 10:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Quisqualis. You have new messages at Talk:Gait_belt.
Message added 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PriceDL (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gait belt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSHA. 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.

Fixed, thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stoping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air drill. 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, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Palm Springs, California, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Still, no bit deal. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Bechtel updates

Hello. I made an edit request to update the Brendan Bechtel article you created recently. These are straightforward edits to update and clarify a few bits of information. Care to review? As an employee of Bechtel, I will not be editing the article directly. I'm pinging you on your Talk page in case you did not see the edit request. Thank you. CM at Bechtel (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalimpong Edits

I would agree to disagree to your recent comment about the changes I made in Kalimpong page. I am specifically referring to the addition of a gallery.

Kalimpong happens to be one of the three ecological hotspots in India. As such there is a range of plants and flowers that are found here which are not found elsewhere.

Hence I believed for a person who is interested in Kalimpong, these photos would make sense.

Kalimpong is also known for its cactus nurseries, photos of which was also added in the gallery.

However I find the tone of your comment a bit condescending and I no more wish to contribute or rather "clutter" Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

I am removing the gallery with immediate effect.

@Subhrajyoti07, I believe that a person interested in Kalimpong would gain little from your photos. It is fun to take many random photos on a visit, but to upload the lot to Wikipedia Commons without descriptive filenames or any sort of image description is wasteful of resources. Clearly, you did not realize that the plants you photographed were not native to Kalimpong, or even the Old World, as you had no idea that you were shooting plants from South America, Europe, South Africa and just about anywhere but India. I guess you visited a botanical garden there, and I'm glad you were kind enough to take down your photos.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis - I do not know how much you are familiar with Kalimpong or your sources basis which you have formed your opinion. Let me explain one more time why the pictures were put in that page and why I felt that they enhances the visitor's knowledge and experience.

As you know Kalimpong is a hill station in the state of West Bengal in India. A majority of the visitors who frequent this page I presume are the travellers who seek to gain more information about their place of visit. A large portion of those visitors are from the state of West Bengal and other states of India. As you have very kindly noted that many of the flowers and plants are not endemic to India or the "Old World". The reason being majority of India is a hot, humid and temperate climate. These so called flowers and plants belonging to other parts of the world grow in this hill station precisely for its comparatively colder climate and is rare in this part of the world.

And that's why it may be of interest to those travellers who do not see these flowers in general.

These flowers grow in abundance in Kalimpong and not limited to some Botanical garden.

You are passing off your mere opinions as facts and that I find as unfortunate.

I have taken down the gallery not because I agree to what you said, but simply because your condescending and negative know it all attitude as an editor is what I disliked.

I do not have any issue if there is a genuine error. But the problem is your delivery of the message is rather crude and unwarranted.

Anyways this discussion is not going anywhere and I do not intend to continue this communication any further. But pl do lighten up.Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Subhrajyoti07 The fact of your inserting numerous photos of nonindigenous plants without captions or even the potential to have captions into the article, as a commentary on its unique climate, did give me pause. This kind of photo "dump" isn't in accord with the mission of Wikipedia, as WP and Commons are not repositories of people's snapshots, but useful resources for the benefit of others. Even with captions and supporting text, such a gallery would, I think, comprise an undue emphasis on the climate in what once was a balanced article. I am sorry that my annoyance shows to the point that you have been offended, but, at this stage in the life of Wikipedia, such misunderstanding of the point and purpose of Wikipedia still shocks me.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons

I reverted further; I assume "On January 4, 2008 Nickelodeon Announced that NickMusic will shut down and That N ending it's 7 year run on Hand. On February 9, 2008 with a Peppa Pig Episode Daddy Gets Fit then the final sign off" never happened because it made absolutely no sense. Nate • (chatter) 03:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse response

Don't forget that fair use photos can also be used, which would be on Wikipedia, not Commons. For "infobox person" you might have been right since for a living person fair use would be hard to justify.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Claudia Forte

The article Claudia Forte has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BIO and WP:NOTRESUME

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deaths

Are 1 per 1000 of all deaths. Not per year. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16409147 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varicocele

FYI On your last edit, you inadvertently removed the last char of the previous </ref> I replaced it. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rayamajhi

Not mine, sorry. This one I've never edited. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. Happens to the best of us. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography terminology

From your past edits, I thought you might have an interest in this topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Terminology -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shabby

you link evidence of my "shabby"tiding up of the mess that was, yet your evidence is the whole page. I get the picture that you think any words joined together makes a paragraph, well you are quite wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdyason (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the part you highlight, and I think it looks a lot better than what it was, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdyason (talk • contribs) 08:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I have done as you bid, 'looked' at the above English, but alas I do not see what you see, maybe that's because we have different eyes? what'd'ya'reckon? so please be the educational person you make assertions at being and please be explicit by quoting the exact instances of my uses of a non-English alphabet ecetera for right now your reiteration of nothingness suggests you are merely a troll and offer expletives as your explanation by which I mean your words are hollow, empty, vacuous, meaningless. this now causes me to offer you something of an undignified attack toward your person with as much venom as I could muster and I've had good and thorough practice. so, troll , "please explain?" ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdyason (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mgdyason, you are turning into a troll. The edit I requested that you revert was reverted by another editor. This discussion has ended.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Quisqualis. 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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Primate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mya

Primordium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anlage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unconstructive edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov"

No Tiramisu could be located unfortunately.

FugitiveBrown (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing ...

... my comment about Red Barber, and giving it its intended meaning. 72.106.157.238 (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tecomella, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fars and Salvadora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33 [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Massacre

Hi,

I changed the lead in this article to conform with the "use/mention distinction" issue described at WP:UMD: the article is not about the phrase "Saturday Night Massacre", but about the incident itself.

I'm not sure how the end result was journalistic rather than encyclopedic. Clearly "encyclopedic" sounds like the preferred goal for an encyclopedia; can you recommend how to best achieve both goals -- or at least, how did my rewrite make it "journalistic"? Understanding that, I can probably come up with an appropriate revision myself. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it read like "journalistic storytelling", in the way the sentence began by setting a scene, rather than "x is a ...", which is more "encyclopedia-style".--Quisqualis (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of edit warring

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for helping me also the congo issue was my fault I initially thought they got confused with the other congo I looked at the source given properly and I was in fault. Arsi786 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting for lack of Citations

Hey Quisqualis! I noticed you reverted edits by 68.46.226.6 adding the jury outcome in the article about Rebecca Zahau for lacking citations. We should probably WP:AFD for new edits, and take an additive approach if possible. It turns out: everything about the edit was objectively accurate and there were multiple news outlets reporting on it. I was about to add the same thing myself! --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Negative behavior

What you do is not for the best of Wikipedia. Regarding some of the reverts you did on my recent edits:

Crocodilia: Somebody else has already undone the unnecessarily revert you did, and no further comments are required.

Paulinella: "(Undid revision 837676074 by 84.210.7.162 (talk) material removed without explanation)" I didn't remove any material. I ADDED material, source and all.

Lamprey: "(Undid revision 837705496 by 84.210.7.162 (talk) The cited source in no way supports the edit) (undo) (Tag: Undo)" Now that's not true. The source claim exactly what I wrote. Anyone who feel the need to check it out themselves will notice that what you say is simply not correct.

Charophyceae: (Undid revision 837678859 by 84.210.7.162 (talk) failure to cite any sources). It wasn't a "failure", I simply didn't add any sources because I assumed it was common knowledge. If you feel it needs citation, there is a function called "citation needed".

Then you wrote the following on my talk page: "You seem to have a strong aversion to the use of the Edit summary. Such behaviour implies that you believe your edits to require no justification. This may not be the case."

Such comments are unacceptable. If an edit improves the article, that's all the justification you need. For the future, if you want someone to use the edit summary, do it as a friendly suggestion, not as a personal insult. Using the edit summary is not mandatory last time I checked. According to the Wikipedia rules, it is not required, and I see it as an opportunity and an offer people are free to use if they like. The edits speak for themselves for those interested, and comparing selected revisions are piece of cake. Should the rules require it, I will do it. Until then, I may or may not use it, depending on the situation, not because someone random tells me to. 84.210.7.162 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

be careful

You must be out of your mind.. You keep writing wrong information of Kafanchan because of your selfish religion purpose.. Kafanchan is not under any emirate..he is only known as sarkin Hausawa just as we have Sarkin Kaninkon and Sarkin Fanstwam .. So please stay away from making wrong information about Kafanchan it seems like you were paid to do this but am warning you for the first and last time.. Don't cause problem in Kafanchan because this can cause a religion crisis in Kafanchan . And I've requested you be blocked from Wikipedia also Dankafanchan (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your habit of repeatedly adding unsourced material to Wikipedia will get you in trouble. I have requested administrator intervention more than once regarding this behaviour, and will do so again if it is warranted.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Graphics Lab request

Hello, Quisqualis. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

Regards, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

Links

That was not a reference, but a link. Fixing an obviously wrong link does not require any references. I hope you agree that it was wrong? My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wp:AIV and 68.234.97.114

68.234.97.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was last warned 8 October '18 and the time before that was 14 September 2016. Just a suggestion, but you might want to retract your AIV report. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted short description at Leaverite

Hi Quisqualis, You reverted my short description at Leaverite without explanation (no edit summary). Please let me know why. (Please ping with reply). Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dore Schary

Hello, When I added WP California to the page I assumed whoever added WP Religion was justified in doing so and applied ratings to it. From what you say it ought to be removed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About adding word 'Chhatrapati' before name of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Firstly you should learn to spell word rightyly.Its word 'ENCYCLOPEDIA' not 'Encycopedia' then tell us to know about the difference between Encyclopedia and encomium. पुष्पक देसाई (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 417: / Line 417: @@
 Hello, When I added WP California to the page I assumed whoever added WP Religion was justified in doing so and applied ratings to it. From what you say it ought to be removed.--[[User:Johnsoniensis|Johnsoniensis]] ([[User talk:Johnsoniensis|talk]]) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
+== About adding word 'Chhatrapati' before name of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ==
+Firstly you should learn to spell word rightyly.Its word 'ENCYCLOPEDIA' not 'Encycopedia' then tell us to know about the difference between Encyclopedia and encomium. [[User:पुष्पक देसाई|पुष्पक देसाई]] ([[User talk:पुष्पक देसाई|talk]]) 03:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)