User talk:Quizical
Welcome Quizical!
I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 26
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morris West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Your copyedits
[edit]Hello, thanks for your copyedits to the Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu page, but please see my edit summary there. Graham87 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Graham : I changed his name to his common name for consistent name use within the article as "Gurrumul" and "Yuninpingu" were both, as you can check yourself, being randomly used when the name should normally be consistent. Also, when someone is nearly always known just by a first name or stage name, such as Gurrumul and also Enya, Beyonce, Cher and Melanie for instance among many others, then the accepted style convention according to the MOS (as per MOS:BIOGRAPHY) is that this name is used and is an exception to the usual principle of using surnames. If you need any evidence that "Gurrumul" was his common name or stage name then you only have to look at the name used on the covers of his CD releases and other items on Amazon at this link. His name on these is, with the one exception of his first album, consistently just "Gurrumul". I also did not appreciate your snarky and silly comment about my removing serial commas. It should have been very clear to you that my copyright was much more than this. As your recent edit and comments were all incorrect you should revert your name changes back to "Gurrumul" in line with the MOS. Quizical (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, consistency is a good idea, but the guideline also says: "For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally ... use the legal surname". I've read enough sources about him in the process of cleaning up the article that I know that he often used his legal name professionally ... and then there's the matter of his posthumous name, Dr G. Yunupingu. I'm sorry about the snark ... I know you'd done more than removing serial commas. Graham87 04:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 31
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Holloway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadcaster.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Splitting discussion for George Pell
[edit]
An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beth Moore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gregory Sutton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Howard.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]
The recent edits you made to John F. Kennedy document hoax constitute WP:EDIT WARring and have been reverted. Please do not continue to edit war on the page, or it may lead to loss of your editing privileges on Wikipedia. Instead, use the article's Talk page to discuss your proposal. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of any edit-warring, all of my recent edits were style and phrasing improvements and they should never have been reverted in the first place. The behaviour of the other editor has been ridiculous and unjustifiable. Quizical (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is your edit warring, not their very normal editing behavior, that has been a problem. Few things on Wikipedia are more likely to lead to a block than edit warring. If you follow the WP:BRD process in the future, it will help you. Also, you should WP:AGF and that editors, especially experienced editors, are doing their best to improve (or maintain the quality) of the encyclopedia. So using words like "ridiculous" and "nonsense" will not help you and could lead to a WP:CIVIL block. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let me be very clear about this, reverting all of another editor's various edits just because of one arguable edit should not be considered "very normal editing behavior". It is disrespectful behaviour and an indication of an attitude of article ownership which is also not acceptable. I was also doing my best to improve the quality of the article and this should have been appreciated and respected by not reverting every edit. The way my editing has been treated is very offensive. Quizical (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quizical, you would make a stronger argument if you would provide a tally of the total number of changes you'd made in your edit (the edit which was reverted), along with a count of how many of your changes are alleged to be the grounds for the reversion of the entire edit. What was the proportion of your changes which are alleged to have been undesirable, to those which were deemed to be acceptable? Of course it would be reasonable to revert a great number of errors all at once, even if to do so would sacrifice a few beneficial changes which had been part of the reverted edit—just as it would be unreasonable to revert a great number of improvements for the sake of eliminating a few mistakes. Has one of those two things happened? Objective data would clarify the matter. —catsmoke 20:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is quite simple and straightforward. There were no obvious "mistakes" - all of my careful and thoughtful editing was reverted simply because of only one change of "John F. Kennedy" to "Kennedy" which could have just been simply restored to the previous version. There is no reasonable excuse for what the reverting editor did. Quizical (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I actually reviewed all of Quizical's proposed changes and did not find any of them to be a clear improvement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's very interesting, because I actually consider them all to be clear style improvements according to the MOS. It is still a verifiable fact that the only Kennedy referred to in the article - apart from one mention of Robert Kennedy in a photo caption - is JFK, so I'm certainly not conceding that this was an obvious editing error. I also suggest that you need to seriously reflect on your behaviour towards me. It is bordering on harassment. Quizical (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quizical, you would make a stronger argument if you would provide a tally of the total number of changes you'd made in your edit (the edit which was reverted), along with a count of how many of your changes are alleged to be the grounds for the reversion of the entire edit. What was the proportion of your changes which are alleged to have been undesirable, to those which were deemed to be acceptable? Of course it would be reasonable to revert a great number of errors all at once, even if to do so would sacrifice a few beneficial changes which had been part of the reverted edit—just as it would be unreasonable to revert a great number of improvements for the sake of eliminating a few mistakes. Has one of those two things happened? Objective data would clarify the matter. —catsmoke 20:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let me be very clear about this, reverting all of another editor's various edits just because of one arguable edit should not be considered "very normal editing behavior". It is disrespectful behaviour and an indication of an attitude of article ownership which is also not acceptable. I was also doing my best to improve the quality of the article and this should have been appreciated and respected by not reverting every edit. The way my editing has been treated is very offensive. Quizical (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is your edit warring, not their very normal editing behavior, that has been a problem. Few things on Wikipedia are more likely to lead to a block than edit warring. If you follow the WP:BRD process in the future, it will help you. Also, you should WP:AGF and that editors, especially experienced editors, are doing their best to improve (or maintain the quality) of the encyclopedia. So using words like "ridiculous" and "nonsense" will not help you and could lead to a WP:CIVIL block. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)