Cyberpower678 (talk | contribs) →Your marking edits as minor: new section |
TracyMcClark (talk | contribs) m Undid revision 503513958 by Cyberpower678 (talk) Enough with that drama festival! |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
:::No matter the way you edit, there always will be some who think different. That doesn't mean one side is right or wrong as "''Interpretation''" is still free. Cheers, [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|TMCk]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper#top|talk]]) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::No matter the way you edit, there always will be some who think different. That doesn't mean one side is right or wrong as "''Interpretation''" is still free. Cheers, [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|TMCk]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper#top|talk]]) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Your marking edits as minor == |
|||
Your marking edits that aren't minor typo fixes or other small stuff for significant edits in article and talk space is innapropriate and disruptive. Please stop this now or you may find yourself blocked.—[[User:Cyberpower678|<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower]] [[User talk:Cyberpower678|<sup><font color=olive face=arnprior>Chat</sup></font>]]<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><font color=olive face=arnprior>Online</font></sub> 00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:56, 22 July 2012
Unless requested, I will respond to posts on the page where the conversation started as a means of keeping the conversation together. If you leave me a message here, please watchlist this page for the duration of the discussion. If I posted on your talk page, I will watch your page for responses. Thanks, TMC (and thanks to Happyme22 for creating this message box). Furthermore, if you'd like to have a response ASAP please let me know here on my talk. |
Ugg boots
Thanks for pointing out the German and Spanish ugg boot articles - that's changed how I feel about some issues. :( I'm not sure how to proceed, but the Spanish article in particular is of interest, and I'll need to keep it in mind. - Bilby (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hodwy TMCk, I've just semied National dish due to persistent vandalism; I understand you may be pissed, but, please, edit summaries such as this are highly inappropriate. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance
I was struggling to figure out how to undo my edits that broke the CRU emails page. I think I have it right now. --News Historian (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Reverting
please go to section I have started explaining the rationale for the edits on MoMK at the talk page HERE.Overagainst (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- You gave a rational only for one of your edits there but neglected to at least source this edit within the article. Another problem with Follain as source is that he is the only one using that term and every single other RS is not. If you check on the translation of the Massei report (which is of course not a RS either but still helpful in determination of facts) you'll find that the Italian legal term of "Concorso" was translated to English as "Complicity" with a footnote that explains the term further. The English term of "complicity" in legal terms doesn't fit the more correct term of "murder in company". there is indeed a big difference and we don't want to confuse our readers with giving a false impression, don't we. So either show that more RS's reported it using the same translation or [what I think would be possible and the only way to go into a detail not reported as such in the mainstream media] use the Italian term in the article with a footnote explaining it.TMCk (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For this. I just went back to check his contributions, saw he'd over-written an existing reference and when I got there to fix it, you had done it already. --GraemeL (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I actually was edit-conflicting with you when I tried to undo those edits and so I just replaced what was missing. It's always such a hassle when spam or vandalism doesn't get reverted right away. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Happy 2012 !!! | ||
Dear TMCk, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot SMM. What a nice surprise. Same to you, TMCk (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Dana Loesch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghans (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) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, curious I see where you want to keep the nasal irrigation section free of unintended advertising and I guess that makes sense but than why are both Alkalol and Nasaline advertised in the content. These are both commercial tradenames and not product descriptions. Nasaline is simply a manual syringe irrigation device and Aklalol is a herbal saline based mucolytic irrigant. If you are to be consistent the decriptions of the products should be used an not the tradenames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubdrink44 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article needs indeed some clean-up re promo and other. You can fix it yourself (that is what WP is all about) but if I find the time, nerv and "lust" I'll work on it. At the time I just removed the most recent and most obvious promo-spam but were reluctend to go further.
BTW, you seem to have edited under at least two different accounts (user:Bubbles0101?). Please choose one, retire the other(s) and make note on your userpage that you'd used this/those account. It is considered wp:sockpuppetry which is a blockable "offense" even if no harm was intented.
If you have further questions just ask me and I'll give you a hand or show you where to find one (depending on the issue.) Cheers, TMCk (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand why you reverted my change to this article, but I was trying to fix a much larger flaw. If you read the "Movements on 1 and 2 November" subheading of the Rudy Guede section, you could draw the conclusion that Guede never went to Kercher's home on those two days. But DNA evidence indicates he was there, as does the court decision. Is it relevant that Guede went to Kercher's home during the time period that the subheading purports to cover? It is so misleading as it stands that perhaps that section should be removed entirely. (BTW, I leave this message here because the article's talk page is protected, although not the article itself, which seems quite strange) 66.66.149.221 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Watch article
Hello. You reverted, without discussion, a book reference I had added to the watch article. Although the published book is called "Practical Watch Repairing", it's got a lot of historical, technical, and background information useful to the article. I've put it back in with explanation. I also explored WP:EL and didn't think it prohibited this particular case.
- De Carle, Donald, (Illustrations by E. A. Ayres), Practical Watch Repairing, 3rd edition, New York : Skyhorse Pub., 2008. ISBN 9781602393578. Significant information on watches, their history, and inner workings.Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts I'll leave it there. Also not much about clocks history itself, I think that enough readers are interested in the inner workings of a clock (like myself) and this seems to a very interesting book to cover this side. And sorry for the late response.TMCk (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Jewish Defense League
Hi,
When I deleted the source backing up the claim that "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers", you referred me to WP:RSN. As you can see, I placed a request there, however, without any response. What would be the right next step now? Imho, it is quite obvious that an article written by "Di LameDuck" is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Regards, LevelBasis (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with the reliability of the source it will be determent at the RS-noticeboard. You being most likely a block-evading sock will be dealt by other means. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- And what if there is no response at the noticeboard?
- I am no sock.
- Grtz, LevelBasis (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
9/11 RfC
Since you contributed to discussion on this issue please comment at this RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Two years in a row
You got me two years in a row! However, this time, I have an additional defense. When I looked at the edit it was not April 1st in my part of the world, and I had way too much wine for dinner.
I am surprised, though, that you bothered. My last attempt to be nice to you was met with not so nice edits. [1]
Having said that, we seem to by on the same side of issues more often than not now that the trial is over. (see the Martin shooting article).
Cheers for getting me again.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- (passing by) Funny as hell... <snickers>
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's way easier to be nice, for both of us, when article content isn't involved. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
@BH: Glad you liked it too :) TMCk (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure which 9/11 issue you're referring to
...but my position is the same. Weight should be based on its prominence in reliable sources. Granted, it's a judgement call, but I've never argued that reliable sources shouldn't have reported on something because I personally don't feel that they're connected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The issue discussed lately and leading to the RFC mentioned two sections above.TMCk (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, you'd be hard-pressed to find any inconsistency. My original objection to the material was that it called the Rice memo "controversial" (or similiar wording) which wasn't supported by the source. I asked how scholarly research treated this material, and had some concerns about the article length. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent or even applies to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The shooting just happened, so there is no scholarly research yet, and I checked the Martin's length the other day and there was room to expand the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Howdy TMCk, thanks for cleaning up after me on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss . Sorry, I didn't understand before that direct/hot references are not allowed.
Could you have a look at that page's talk page, and let me know why it's under arbitration? doesn't seem to make sense.
Thetilo (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Question re excessive edit
Could you have a look at the recent edit of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Must_Be_Said by SlimVirgin , deleting 10 references and basically destroying work of others Thetilo (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Santorum
Could you point me to where the source says that? I looked for it. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just a sec.TMCk (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why you couldn't find it; It is right after the 62% claim. Quote from the source:
"He claimed that “62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it,” but declined to cite a source for the figure."
This seems very clear to me.TMCk (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) - ...and of course, you're welcome :) TMCk (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I couldn't find it because I clicked on the wrong link. After finding the correct one, it is indeed very clear. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Roman Polanski
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Roman Polanski". Thank you. --Psalm84 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Selmedica
The link to Mike young is not advertising, it's to provide legal substantiation that Selmedica as a company constitutes a criminal enterprise with Perry Belcher as the felon in charge of the scheme to defraud people with medical issues through the sale of fake medication by impersonating a medical professional.
A better link would perhaps be to http://mikeyounglaw.com/perry-belcher-criminal-records/ where the arrest and conviction record itself is available. It seems important to cite a verifiable and authoritative legal source on the nature of Selmedica as a criminal enterprise.
HealthyHabit (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. As a start you might want to make yourself familiar with our external link guidelines. Besides other points within, this section is of major importance in this case. Best, TMCk (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Facts do not get a lot more substantiated than a lawyer acting in his role as an officer of the court presenting the legal documents of an individual's case history, even if the lawyer in question also advertises his services around the presentation of fact. The direct link to the PDF of the criminal record in question - http://mikeyounglaw.com/belcher-criminal-records.pdf - would bypass the advertising issue entirely, but direct linking to PDF documents is a poor practice. The news reports of Belcher's arrest, his guilty plea and the asset forfeiture seems to have vanished from most media outlets, leaving Mike Young maintaining his court documents publicly available as one of the major substantiations of Belcher's criminal record. HealthyHabit (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Солнцезащитные очки
Вы русского языка не понимаете, чи шо??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.169.162 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Was wondering...
...why you mark all your edits as minor. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not all but I mark maintenance edits which I judge to be uncontroversial as minor. I must do something right there since I barely get reverted, (vandals and "disruptors" excluded.) Hope that helps. BTW, I'm wondering why you suddenly pop up here on the same subject... but you're asking nicely and I react to nice with nice.TMCk (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I can't remember how I ended up here...probably another one of my Wikipedia 'rabbit holes'....you know, when you are editing an article and then you read something and then you click on a link and then another link and before you know it you look at the page and think "now, how the hell did I end up *here*?"...therefore, a 'rabbit hole'. As to the minor edits, I'm very sparing with the minor edits box myself and only use it for simple spelling corrections or a single missing bracket...stuff like that. I figure if anyone could question my edits as not being minor, then my change (correcting spelling or adding that missing bracket or whatever), regardless of what *I* think?....heh, I guess it ain't minor. So when I come across an editor who seems to use it differently I wonder about it. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)