User talk:CountMacula
Problems with the talkpage on Republican primaries?
I noticed in the history of the Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 that you wanted to move a comment to another section but it seems that you didnt succeed. I have taken the liberty to put your comment in Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merge proposed. Please have a look, and if you dont want it to be there you can freely delete (or put a delete line (S) over it), just remember to state that I was wrong putting it there. It was a interesting part in the discussion in any case. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have undone the undoing I did of you undoing, or something like that. Like you told me on my talkpage. I am really bad at this myself, but I found some interesting advice that I have learned from: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone can see the rest of this discussion on: User talk:Sgt. R.K. Blue#I made a bit of a mess) and User talk:Jack Bornholm#Please undo your undo of my undo Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
bitcoin
your turn 75.87.130.113 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Reclaiming old articles.
You ask another editor about how to retrive delected articles. Maybe I can help. Try if this procedure will help you:
- Write the name New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008 in search or just press the link. You will then be redirected to the article "United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008" but just under the title there will be a line saying: "(Redirected from New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008)" press on that link and you will be back on what use to be the republican party primary. Go to history and undo the blanking of the page (properly the last edit and anyway the edit that erases a lot of bites), then you will have the old article back. Use the same procedure for the Democratic party or any other article.
Hope you will find the old article you are looking for. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jack.CountMacula (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
There was a reason why I removed those information based on WP:COATRACK policy. The important information are already listed in there and should stay that way. Anything else is not notable. ViriiK (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natalja Baklanova.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! France3470 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Take the chords from the James Taylor version ([1], 1st & 2nd line: A G D A|A G D E) and transpose them to C (1st & 2nd line: C B♭ F C|C B♭ F G), then put them under the melody from IMSLP. They match for the first eight measures (nine really), at which point the Taylor arrangement shows some variation (A F♯m D A [in C: C Am F C] and presumably melodic changes to go with it while the IMSLP looks like it repeats C B♭ F G).
In other words, the James Taylor version is an arrangement of the Irish air. Hyacinth (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Listening to the Taylor song on Youtube it sounds like its in C, not A (as all the tabs show). I try not to rely on my ear, and though I believe there is no explicit policy, it is implicit through practice that citations rather than one's ear are needed on Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Songs go in quotes, albums in italics. Movies & books go in italics. There's guidelines at MOS:TITLE (and WP:ITALICS & MOS:QUOTEMARKS). Hyacinth (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The article "major second" isn't about seconds or the term second, so the term second shouldn't be bolded. The term is bolded at "Second (disambiguation)", about the term second, and "second", about the interval of time. The article "major second" is about major seconds, and thus major second is bolded. Hyacinth (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like IP 75.2.128.250 objected to having the staff position defined before the term on numerous musical interval articles (for example minor third: "This article is about the 'minor third' and should begin by describing exactly that, not thirds in general."), and I changed major second in accordance with or anticipation of that. Hyacinth (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The article could look like this:
- In Western music theory, a major second (About this sound Play (help·info)) is a second spanning two semitones. A second is a musical interval encompassing two adjacent staff positions (see Interval number for more details). For example, the interval from C to D is a major second, as the note D lies two semitones above C, and the two notes are notated on adjacent staff positions. Diminished, minor and augmented seconds are notated on adjacent staff positions as well, but consist of a different number of semitones (zero, one, and three).
but it doesn't. Do you know why? Hyacinth (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLD, "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph)." The terms such as major tone are bolded as synonyms.
However, according to WP:BOLDTITLE they should appear in the first sentence. Probably in the format "major second (or synonym x, synonym y)". They can then be explained in later paragraphs (without bolding). Apparently they either should appear in the first sentence bolded, or they shouldn't be bolded. Hyacinth (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The term defined in the article "definition" is bolded. The article reads: "A definition is..." Similarly, the term defined in the article "major second" is bolded. That article reads: "...a major second is..." Hyacinth (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Why aren't "'stipulative' definition" and "'descriptive' definition" italicized? Hyacinth (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would object. Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natalja Baklanova, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natalja Baklanova
Hello CountMacula. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Natalja Baklanova".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natalja Baklanova}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits to Duon
Thank you! Epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Water fluoridation in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CDC and California Proposition 10. 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) 08:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
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) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, CountMacula. 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)
Notice of discretionary sanctions
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice of specific discretionary sanction of Sarah Jeong
There is specific discretionary sanction on Sarah Jeong - it is described in an edit window notice, and also on the talk page. Namely: "You are not permitted to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion and consensus on talkpage, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Rick Mehta for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Mehta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Mehta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitro talk 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)