Nnemo

Old stuff

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. SqueakBox 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on User:Sqrrl101: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rockpocket 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When you make edits like this dont be surprised if then all your edits get reverted, SqueakBox 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You called Laurie Pycroft a wanker in the article space as well as on his user page here. That makes you a bad faith editor and all your edits need to be scrutinised and if there is the slightest doubt they need to be reverted. The only reason I havent reverted the Dolphinium edit is because I was able to verify its veracity. You have brought this on yourself, SqueakBox 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont be crass. Wanker is an insult and you well know it. Your response merely confirms your bad faith attitude. Please change your attitude if you wish to stay here as other editors dont need to suffer your abuse while your vandalism of our encyclopedia is completely unacceptable and your lame excuse merely compounds that unacceptability, SqueakBox 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That is total rubbish. Masturbation is healthy etc especially in the young when a sexual relationship may not be appropriate but wanker in British English is an insult, and a serious insult. See WP:NPA, this was a serious violation of that policy, equal to calling someone a motherfucker in American English. Your vandalism of the main space and your repeated attacks after being warned against this user are a fact, now either start editing properly or dont at all, but do not try to play smart or cocky with me or any other editor here, SqueakBox 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User:Sqrrl101‎. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, Nnemo, any further personal attacks will lead to a lengthy block. Either contribute constructively or find something else to do with you time. Rockpocket 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sharm el Sheikh

Nnemo, please do not spoil format of airline destination article by listing Sharm el Sheikh in Asia, even if it is part of Asia, it belongs to Egypt which is an African country therefore must be included in Africa, if you do not stop this and revert the chnage syou have made, then I have no choice but to report you to Arbitration. Feel free to discuss this here so a mutual agreement can be reached, but I must inform you a country cannot be divided between two continents in the destination list, all cities must be included in the continent that the country closest identifies with.(125.209.94.10 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

“listing Sharm el Sheikh in Asia, even if it is part of Asia, it belongs to Egypt which is an African country”

Egypt is an African country and an Asian country.

“a country cannot be divided between two continents in the destination list”

In this case, list the countries alphabetically, regardless of their continent (this would be consistent with your country-oriented view). Or list the cities alphabetically, regardless of their country. But as long as the destinations are sorted by continent, this geographical sorting must be consistent. You can sort the way you please, but putting Sharm el Sheikh under “Africa” is just wrong, and will always be wrong. --Nnemo 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont make the rules wikipedia does, if you want it changed tell them.

Destinations HAVE to be listed under that continent the country is most identified with, or majority of the country lies in, Egypt's case its Africa, I used to divide Russia along your lines part in Europe Part in Asia same for Turkey but administrators always changed it back to original with messages about rules regarding all this, so its a WIKIPEDIA ruling and NOT my point of view, YOU are BREAKING wikipedia rules, I have tried three attempts to resolve this issue with you as dictated by wikipedia in resloving conflicts related to editing, but you are not listening, stop now or risk being reported and banned.

I do agree Turkey is Asian and should not be listed in Europe just because part of Istanbul is located there, therefore the same for Egypt which should be in Africa completely.(125.209.94.10 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what rules you are talking about. --Nnemo 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

None of your arguments are valid, heres the OFFICIAL Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists format for Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Airline_destination_lists:_Asia only Asian countries can be listed in there, and divided into THEIR repective regions, NO country belonging to ANOTHER continent can be added in here even if part of it may lie on the Asian side, note that even Turkey is excluded from the list and OFFICIALLY included in Europe according to WIKIPEDIA airline destinations list format and NOT me, and heres Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Airline_destination_lists:_Africa.

You have are now aware of flouting official wikipedia format associated with WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists.(inspector 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

January 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rotating locomotion in living systems, you may be blocked from editing. Mokele (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. This is not disruptive. This is adding something I consider relevant. Did any person say s/he considers it irrelevant? No. Did s/he say why? A fortiori no. Escher's Curl-up is mentioned, and even pictured. Discussion here. Nnemo (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Coordinated Universal Time. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Motto

I should mention that even texts by Polish authors quote the state motto of the Commonwealth in Latin. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:In the news

Please do *NOT* leave edit requests at this page (i.e. here), because it's a redirect page (see WP:REDIRECT) and so shouldn't be edited like that. Go to WP:ERRORS for errors, or Wikipedia talk:In the news for other issues. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen in the doc:

“See an error? Please note it on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors for administrator assistance. Thanks.”

Still, something has to be corrected if you say right. I wanted to modify the Template:In the news. Locked. So I was directed to the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:In_the_news&action=edit&preload=Template:Edit_protected/preload&editintro=Template:Edit_protected/editintro&preloadtitle=Edit+request+from+Nnemo%2C+29+April+2011&section=new. So came the edit you don't like.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits in QuickTime

You have recently replaced numerous hypens in the article with strange Chinese symbols. What are you doing Nnemo? I hope this really was an accident or you intended to do something that misfired. Please take care not to repeat it again. ISO dates in the article must be separated with standard hyphens. Fleet Command (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have do the same thing to iTunes too. Which other articles have you done this to? Fleet Command (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello FleetCommand,

I had put standard Unicode non-breaking hyphens, for good reasons. They display correctly on all environments I know — and that means a varied lot. There is something crappy in your system — FleetCommand's system, take no offense. However, for your eyes only, I dehyphened the dates, thanks to AppleScript, Automator and my fairy fingers.

--Nnemo (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This section states that the date format for the dashed (ie 1913-01-27) citations must be in format, the dash format that was originally in the articles, before it was changed. Now, the de-dashed format you used is fine (ie 27 January 1913). Kiranerys-talk 23:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This format is not only fine, it is even much more human-friendly. Hyphened dates are computer-friendly. --Nnemo (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not contribute from one system or one browser; I am constantly traveling and not every single systems that I stumble upon can be faulty.

And by the way, please read WP:RETAIN and WP:DATESRET. First, you constantly go around and de-captialize infobox phrases. Even if your preferred form was not incorrect, the form that is in prevalent use right now is also correct and must not be touched per WP:RETAIN. Second, ISO 8601 date format is one of dates formats accepted by MOS:DATES. Hence, when the article citations are predominantly using this format, you shouldn't change them. Fleet Command (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You really need to know how thing work in Wikipedia. When someone contests your edits per WP:BRD, responding with another revert is called edit warring which is very offensive. When your edit is contested, you should talk and state your reasons. Fleet Command (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"You really need to know how thing work in Wikipedia."

I know pretty well how they work… or don't work. Despite its vices, I believe in Wikipedia.

WP:BRD in just an essay, not a policy.

When someone reverts my edit, this is the start of edit war.

"When your edit is contested, you should talk and state your reasons."

Apparently, this is what you and I do. :-) 

--Nnemo (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you are edit warring. You are violating WP:DATESRET and WP:RETAIN (which are policies) without attempting to establish a consensus. And your statement of "just an essay" is an attempt to evade consensus. See Arguments to avoid: That's only a guideline or essay and Wikipedia:The value of essays.

Now, ISO 8601 is an accepted form that has established itself in the article. WP:DATESRET says you must keep it. Your excuse of user-friendliness is already rejected in Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates.

As for violating WP:RETAIN, when you provide a link to an article as your defense, please take note that I might actually read it and compare it with your statement to see if you are telling the truth or not. Manual of Style#Capital letters never says that "QuickTime Pro: Closed-source freeware" is one single phrase. It is two phrases: "QuickTime Pro" and "Closed-source freeware". However I do know that some variations of English allow the phrase that starts after the colon (or any other form of inline-heading separator) to start with small letter. (Still, I don't see you converting "Type: Multimedia framework" into "Type: multimedia framework" either.) But that variation of English is not used in this article. So, please don't violate WP:RETAIN anymore. Fleet Command (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, be less aggressive towards me. You look to be at war. I am not at war. You state your reasons. I find them good or bad, but I call them *reasons*. I state my reasons. Feel free to call them good or bad, but please [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith] and stop calling them *excuses*.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN asks to retain the national variety of English. It does not ask to keep the capital letter when it lies — incorrectly — in the middle in a phrase. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters even asks the opposite: to put a capital letter only in a strict list of cases, and to put a small letter otherwise.

I had put non-breaking hyphens because I saw a lot of dates like "2002-02-04" with "04" alone on a line. Which is incorrect typography, disturbing and ugly. Especially in a reference, because references are often displayed in several columns — which I hate. And here comes another problem: the last reference of a column can be split, having its end at the top of the following column, requiring much scrolling towards top. Scrolling to top in order to read the end of a very brief text. That is hard to understand, counter-intuitive, ugly and very unusable.

--Nnemo (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You change my message? That is very impertinent. And you transfer your message to another place to pretend it is an answer to my message? Man, instead of working towards a consensus, you are working away from the consensus! Alright! I ask you one last time: Let's act cooperatively and gracefully. Let's work towards a consensus and do not do what makes assumption of good faith a trying labor. Fleet Command (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"You change my message? That is very impertinent. And you transfer your message to another place to pretend it is an answer to my message?"

I never do that. I deeply respect writings.

I did these two moves:

1. I moved your reply to where it was before you grouped it with your other reply. I thought your grouping had been a mistake. So I gave back your writing its full place, so that the discussion flow be respected.
2. I moved my reply downwards. I had replied above some discussion between you and me, and this was a mistake. So now my reply is where it deserves to be: more down than yours, because it came after yours. So that the discussion flow be respected.

Please, peace and love.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

www

Hi Nnemo. I see that you have been changing the display of website urls in infoboxes, often just adding www. to shortened addresses. [1][2] Could you clarify why you are adding the www prefix? Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems odd to me too, especially since you are such an advocate of user-friendliness. Why do you do that? Fleet Command (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

To avoid the so frequent confusion between the name and the Web address. The name is Wikipedia. The Web address is (http://)www.wikipedia.org. So, next to the label "Web site", or — a fortiori — "URL", we put www.wikipedia.org. Or Wikipedia, although this is less explicit. But not wikipedia.org.

I had written a much more elaborate message, but my Mac crashed and Firefox did not recover my session nor my message. So I am in bad mood.

--Nnemo (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may be doing that for some places, but I do distinctly recall areas (I can go to find the diffs if need be) where apple.com displayed URL has been changed to www.apple.com, and I mean the URL that is displayed to the end user who reads the article. It is un-necessary to insert the URL, as the infoboxes often get cluttered anyway, so adding more info takes up space. In addition, this extra www information overcomplicates things for the end user. I just don't see the point of adding extra fluff to the article. We know what apple.com is, no need to add more.kiranerys(u,c) 05:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You can say that again. KISS principle. Fleet Command (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, keep it simple.

Next to "URL" or "Web address", let's display the URL or Web address.

I like the idea of even simpler: just it, without link.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Most people ignore "www" because they feel it is a hard-to-pronounce redundancy and they are right; it is unnecessary complexity. But as for linking to it, it is neither complexity nor unnecessary; it brings convenience for the reader.

And a word of advice: Instead of playing dumb as well as edit warring, you can call in an RFC. Edit warring, violation of established consensus, pretense and undue use of sarcasm will only alienate you from the rest of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello FleetCommand,

Oh so big words! My position is much simpler:

Many people forget "www" and it leads to absurdities; "apple.com" and "www.apple.com" are two different addresses, which, a priori, give two different ressources; "www" is the standard prefix, but it is far from being the only one used; and it is wholly part of the address — for an address using it, of course —. "Command" is shorter than "FleetCommand", but I don't call you "Command", I call you "FleetCommand".

See my reply to Gobonobo hereafter.

And — again — don't see wars everywhere — there are already enough wars in the world — and please assume good faith. I don't play dumb. And what have I been doing in this long discussion? Edit warring or discussing?

--Nnemo (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I am Fleet Command, not FleetCommand but people often call me your majesty! ;) Just kidding. Anyway, I don't see any benefit in reiterating your position over and over; I still disagree. You have three options: To make war (edit-warring), to make peace (go through dispute resolution process as I highlighted earlier) or to let go. Fleet Command (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"We know what apple.com is"

Do we? My grandmother does not. But she knows what Apple is. As for me, I know that apple.com is an Internet domain; with a technical point of view, not with a user point of view. But apart from that, I don't know what apple.com is.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Apple.com is the shortest combination of keys that you can type into the address bar to navigate to the Apple website. Of course network administrators will have different ways of mapping their subdomains, but most websites will resolve whether the user types the www prefix or not. Excluding both the http:// and the www renders a shorter and more recognizable url for your grandmother or any other user. I suppose if you like, you could consider the www implied just as the http:// is, i.e. (http://www.)wikipedia.org. However, many websites do not even make use of the www, which, given its questionable utility, will likely be phased out eventually anyhow. Thank you for your explanation of your reasoning. I think that you would be right if you were to say that we do not make an accurate distinction between the name and the web address. Cheers, Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gobonobo,

"Apple.com is the shortest combination of keys that you can type into the address bar to navigate to the Apple website."

No, it is "apple". What I usually type. And "www" is the standard prefix and "com" is the "default extension". So my Web browser automagically adds "www." and ".com". This user-friendly behaviour is classic in Mac browsers, and exists now more and more in Windows and Linux browsers. So let's display only "apple"? No, of course.

"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept."

http://www.postel.org/postel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postel%27s_law

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791

A space in URL must be avoided. But I have discovered that typing "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor Penguin" leads me to "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Penguin". Thanks to my Web browser? Thanks to the Wikipedia server? I guess: a little of both. So I type "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor Penguin". The space is user-friendly and language-respectful. On the other hand, the "_" is computer-people stuff; it is an enigma for many "normal" people. But "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Penguin" is the real Web address, so "_" is the technically correct character. So which one of these two addresses do we publish and advertise? The real, canonical, correct one: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Penguin". Penguins rock! Bonobos too!

The addresses "apple.com" and "www.apple.com" are two different addresses, which, a priori, give two different ressources; "www" is the standard prefix, but it is far from being the only one used; and it is wholly part of the address — for an address using it, of course —.

"Excluding both the http:// and the www renders a shorter and more recognizable url for your grandmother or any other user."

No. This may be true for some users — for you I guess. But this is strange: removing the "signature" of the URL makes it more recognizable? As for me, it is the opposite: I recognize a URL precisely when I see "http://" or, more typically, "www"; "www" is the URL clue. Look at those horrors: "sports-santé.com"; "Comment ça marche.net" "Le Monde.fr". What are these? Web addresses? They look like. With their extension, they invite me to type them in my address bar. And of course it does not work. They are not addresses, they are Web site names — poorly chosen, in that typical dot-com-era ugly fashion of including the extension in the name. What are the Web address, which work in the address bar? "www.sports-sante.com", "www.commentcamarche.net", "www.lemonde.fr". How do I recognize instantly that these are working Web addresses? Precisely with the standard prefix "www". So when I see "sports-santé.com", I don't know: is it a name but a non-working address? or is it a working URL? I don't know. And don't tell me that I should guess from the accent or space. Non-technical people have no clue to guess that typically the domain name is accentless and spaceless. Especially now that accents are allowed, and very rarely used, in domain names.

"However, many websites do not even make use of the www, which, given its questionable utility, will likely be phased out eventually anyhow."

Phased out some day? We bet? :-) Almost all Web sites I encounter use the standard prefix "www", including the Web standard body's www.w3.org.

--Nnemo (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See also this discussion. --Nnemo (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Black-headed Gull

Hi, the bird project fully capitalises all bird species, and this is accepted as an exception to the usual lc convention, including at WP:FAC. I've therefore moved the article back to full caps and undone your good faith changes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jim,

I had seen a (very) common noun. So I small-cased it. According to language rule, Wikipedia:Manual of Style and consistency with many other Wikipedia pages. Now I see there are many Gulls. That's against Wikipedia policy, but, as for me, OK for the Birds. So we capitalize the Animals, but Black-headed Gull was weird and unfair, so I write Black-Headed Gull, to get consistency.

--Nnemo (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Capitals or not capitals? That is the question. I agree to choose either no capitals or full capitals. But no half capitals.

--Nnemo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You undid my non-case changes too. Collateral damage, I guess.

--Nnemo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make up your own naming system. There are about 10,000 bird articles, all of which follow an agreed convention regarding capitalisation. If you don't like it, raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds‎. I like to assume good faith, but looking at the comments above, I think I'll take the view that further changes are disruptive editing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Change often disrupts.

Mixing capitalization, giving it to Black while denying it to headed, is what I call making up one's own — inconsistent — naming system.

--Nnemo (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What “agreed convention” ? Which would be against Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS :

“Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.”

--Nnemo (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds does not own the bird articles.

--Nnemo (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

With regard to your recent edit of the GLC page please can you use the edit summary box before saving, this saves editors watching the pages having to go into the history to work out what's changed. Thanks asnac (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Asnac,

What is GLC ?

--Nnemo (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP.fr and MoS

Hi, you posted at the Manual of Style talk, and you are presumably experienced at the French WP. I'd like to know what your view is on the difference between the way these two projects conceive their centralised style guidance. A cursory look at the French one (my French is really not good) suggests that style guidance plays a very different role in English and French. Tony (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tony,

So much to say, so little time. I can elaborate if you want to. In short, in French more spaces, that give welcome air, and in English way too many Capital Letters. The English Wikipedia Manual of Style courageously stands against English Newspaper-Style Capitalization Of Everything. Let it go further and stand against, or at least not support, capitalization of Catholic, Communist and Futurist. The most absurd English practice in my not-so-humble opinion consists of adding in the quotes "whatever follows them," happily the English Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't support this practice.

My druide is simple and good advice. My most trusted guide is the almost perfect Larousse des difficultés de la langue française.

--Nnemo (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the capitalisation, which is like a cancer; but so does WP:MOS and its subpages, and so do several authoritative style guides, such as Oxford's New Hart's Rules. I was expecting you to say that en.WP's style guide is ten times the size of the French one—perhaps it is. Tony (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) PS Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer right now.Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Weather box

Please see [3]. Template after your changes displays dotted lines on line of month - below of letters in Jan Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (except May). Please fix it. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

See this discussion.

--Nnemo (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you posting the link to that discussion everywhere? Please stop. A few pages are fine, but 8 is disruptive. Goodvac (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Mathematics. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Theodosius Dobzhansky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ashford International railway station

Hi, regarding your addition of {{why}} with this edit - I don't have sources, but I have put what I believe to be the reason at Talk:Ashford International railway station#International services not for domestic use. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know.

--Nnemo (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

Please tell me why you made your edit to Template:Why?. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To allow editors — especially me — to write {{Why?}}. Before my visit, we had to write {{Why?|date=January 2012}}.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You can still use the template without a date, even in the present version. Although you should preferably use a date. If you don't, a bot will add it automatically after a few hours/days. What you did was disable all the dates for all the hundreds of instances this template is used that have a date. Which is all instances without exception (unless you recently wrote one without a date and the bot hasn't added it yet). You have been around long enough to know that you shouldn't mess with maintenance templates (or anything else, for that matter) without discussion. Debresser (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I had just added {{why}} without date in an article.

Before my passage, the template's doc did not say the template could be used without date. Now the template's doc says the template can be used without date.

I hope you did not break the dateless uses of the template.

--Nnemo (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

All tags that can take dates can be used without a date also. Nevertheless, this should not be encouraged. Which is why I removed the dateless usage from the documentation, as on many documentation pages of maintenance tags, btw. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making using these templates a pain. In these cases, can you at least put a substitution in the doc, like here ? So that we can have a permanent way of using the template.

--Nnemo (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh you're so welcome. Get used to typing the month and year. What are you, lazy? Debresser (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am, and proud of it ! And, as an engineer, I am particularly lazy when it comes to doing tasks that machines can do very well.

--Nnemo (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

:) For the user there is no difference in workload whether to copy the code with substitution or with the date added by magic words. But the first is definitely easier to understand for the non-expert user. And that is an important argument on Wikipedia, ceteris paribus. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. :-)

--Nnemo (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Potentially controversial page move

Hi Nnemo. I have moved your recent submission from WP:RM#Technical requests to Talk:Plasma Frozen Within 24 Hours After Phlebotomy#Requested move. The article has been moved back and forth in the past, so we cannot consider this uncontroversial. Favonian (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your feedback

I saw your feedback request before you removed it - is {{Pad}} what you are looking for? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I want to insert simple spaces. The largest key on my keyboard.

--Nnemo (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think {{Sp}} is the closest equivalent. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I had found it, after a loooong search.

--Nnemo (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

below vs hereafter

Hi, why is this an accessibility issue? Hereafter is pretty old-fashioned nowadays. Like hitherto and wheretofor. Tony (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

On the Web, we don't know in what shape the content will be received. The content is not always written vertically. Some blind people read all the content on one moving braille line. More frequently, blind people hear the content spoken by their Web browser.

--Nnemo (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Île-de-France tramway Line 4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Île-de-France (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) 10:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited MasterCard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 10:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Provide edit summaries!

Nnemo, I notice that other editors have drawn this to your attention, above. Please leave edit summaries. And make them informative. It is especially disruptive to edit WP:MOS and other MOS pages, as you do from time to time, with adding to the essential documentation of changes that everyone else takes care to maintain. It seems that you do not bother to answer those objecting to your omission. Be clear about this, at least: I will revert any such inconsiderate edit of yours on sight. Reasons:

• You impose an unfair burden on dozens (sometimes hundreds) of your fellow editors, each of whom must check every time you do that.
• You make searching the histories of pages much harder, when editors try to locate the source of anomalies or abuses in them. This is especially a concern with policy and guideline pages.

A change of attitude, please.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 21:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC) ☺

I understand, will try to think of it.

--Nnemo (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You might practise by leaving edit summaries even at your own talkpage. Note that you can get a reminder to leave an edit summary each time. Go to My preferences (see the top of every screen on Wikipedia); select Editing, and activate this option: Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Then don't forget to save that change (see the bottom that screen). Works for me, anyway.

Noetica^Tea? 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I see things are improving, Nnemo. Great! Now, study this example, showing your edit summary and then my own. See how I work to make things even clearer, so that anyone can tell what's happening without puzzling over the matter? They can't read our minds, you know! See your word "notably", standing by itself away from the rest of your text. Hard to tell what you might mean by that.

There is an art to clear communication in edit summaries, just as editing itself is an art. Keep it up!

Noetica^Tea? 22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But the limit is too small ! Sometimes, I can't write my summary… so I don't write it.

--Nnemo (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Middle Passage

Please stop whatever you're trying to do at Middle Passage. Please read WP:REFPUNC and look at other articles with blockquotes. You'll see that the quote is attributed by a footnote at the end of the quote, after the period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Indentured servant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 11:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you return to main page errors after reporting a "disturbing" error, but I've left you a message there about a DYK hook: "that journalist Ding Yu interviewed 226 death row prisoners", which I wondered if was equally disturbing and ugly to you? The Rambling Man (talk)

coup d'etat to capital letter?

What's the justification for capitalizing "Etat" here and not "coup"? I'm not sure I follow this move; coup d'etat is commonly written without the second capital, as in our article coup d'état. If it were a title "Malian Coup d'Etat", both words would be capitalized, right? I'll hold off reverting for now, but could you drop by the article's talk page and chime in? Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Well, I write coup in lowercase, simply because there is no reason for a capital letter. :-) And I usually read and write État, State, in English and in French, with a capital letter when in the sense of country or nearly-country : l'État français, Germany is a federal State, l'État du Gujarat, the State of Hawaii…

--Nnemo (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, but for future reference, I believe "coup d'etat" can be found in English dictionaries as a set phrase with all lowercase. thanks for all your close attention to these articles! Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you again, but you seem to be introducing a lot of non-English spellings and phrasings into articles today. "The Economic Community..." gets a "the", but I can't find any examples of "the ECOWAS" when written as an acronym; I'm not sure where you thought you saw in the BP article, but it's not there.[4] You can also check BBC and NYT if you like.[5][6] Anyway, a small thing, to be sure, but like me you seem to be someone who likes to get the small things right. Thanks again for the copyediting! Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you've inserted this a third time in violation of WP:3RR. Please review 3RR and remove it. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You forgot again ! ;-) The BBC. The NY Times.

In the Bangkok Post article — and similarly in other newspapers —, I read :

“He was speaking at Kati near Bamako, the headquarters of the junta, whose head, Captain Amadou Sanogo, read out the accord signed with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).”

We write “the Economic Community of West African States”. Why would it be different for “ECOWAS” ? It's the same. ECOWAS = Economic Community of West African States = CEDEAO = Communauté Économique Des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest. We write and say the African Union, the AU, the European Union, the EU, the UN, the US…

--Nnemo (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd ask you to re-read what I wrote; that Bangkok Post quote, obviously, does not say "The ECOWAS." If you review the sources, you'll very clearly see that when the full name is written out, "the" is used. When the acronym is used, "the" is not used. I can't explain it either, but on Wikipedia, sadly, we don't get to make our own rules, as you appear to be doing here; we follow what the reliable sources say. How can writing it the same way as major news sources be an error? If you know better than the world's media, and perhaps you do, I suggest the solution of a letter campaign to these organizations to explain your new rule. Until then, though, I suggest we follow the standard phrasing. Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

“How can writing it the same way as major news sources be an error?”

Ho ho, of course, it can be ! I know dozens of errors which are very widespread in newspapers and commonly reproduced over and over. That does not change the fact that they are wrong. Ask any scientist, historian, law specialist, they will tell you the same thing.

--Nnemo (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you're really arguing that you know better about this than all the world media we've consulted, you seem to have enough Wikipedia experience to know how this works: you need to then find more persuasive sources on the topic. But as an anonymous Wikipedia user, you don't get to just declare that you "know better", regardless of your own expertise. I appreciate your efforts to copy-edit, but I'd suggest in the future that you slow down and double-check yourself a bit instead. If you want to move an article because of spelling issues, for example, you might double-check with a dictionary that your own spelling is correct; if you want to change a phrasing in an article and are repeatedly reverted by other editors pointing you to other sources, you might check those sources, or offer sources of your own. All the best for your future editing... Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad edit

How is it "nicer refs" when you edit produced a long list with 60% white space on big screens? --bender235 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking common terms

Hello. Please don't needlessly link common terms as you did here. There is no need to link terms that a majority of English speaking readers would understand. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

These links do not hurt, and they can help. I would perfectly understand you for words such as cat or bed. But the words I see linked here, India and Brazil, are proper nouns. You may call them “common”, but they are not common nouns. ;-) From what I have observed for long, usage on Wikipedia is to link (at least once — then it is superfluous) country names, city names, person names… Because Wikipedia is global, and not everyone in the world knows all the 200 or so countries of the world.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we simply don't need to link country names link Brazil and India as they are clearly in very common usage throughout the encyclopaedia. We don't want a disturbing, ugly sea of unnecessary blue links, do we? Note WP:OVERLINK, which says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features...", like countries! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we don't want to have too many blue links. WP:OVERLINK makes sense too — except for languages.

--Nnemo (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, there seems no value at all in linking terms like Sun or Earth or film script as you did in one or more of these edits. Can you justify that? This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, I think most of our readers here would understand "Sun" without it being linked, wouldn't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not link “Sun”. …Except in a context where the Sun is technically important. Like the article of the film “Sunshine”, of which the Sun is the star. ;-) Or an astronomy article about stars… In such cases, I don't consider the link indispensable, but I consider the link helpful. It helps the reader, not to understand the word “Sun”, but to know what the Sun is, encyclopedically : what is its composition? what is its mass? what is its size?… In this context, when I am the reader, I often click on the link, to learn more. I admit that in this context a link on “Earth” would be less relevant.

I did not link “film script” — otherwise it was a mouse error.

--Nnemo (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How many normal readers of this Wikipedia would be confused by which "Sun" was meant? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Ice cream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Laïkós Drómos

A tag has been placed on Laïkós Drómos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – Wdchk (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Laïkos Dromos

A tag has been placed on Laïkos Dromos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Laikos Dromos

A tag has been placed on Laikos Dromos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Utilisateur:Nnemo/common.js

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Utilisateur:Nnemo/common.js, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thebirdlover (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that you possibly can't speak English that well, but you have to put in code like that on a new user sub-page in English or it won't work. I don't know much about html coding but there are probably users that could help you. --Thebirdlover (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You may delete the page Utilisateur:Nnemo/common.js, I don't care. I had forgotten to translate Utilisateur into User.

But I have now created the page User:Nnemo/common.js, and it does not work ! :'-( Please help me to have the cursor auto-landed in the search box when I go to the Wikipedia main page ! Many thanks !

--Nnemo (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Evening Nnemo. I have looked into your request and it appears that we actually have a gadget to perform the function you need (Focussing on the Search box) - first, could you please clear what you have in your common.js, then go to My Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing - the third option down allows you to focus directly on the search box. Please check that box and save your preferences, then try again. If you still find this isn't working for you, please reactivate the Help me box and someone will come assist you. Best of luck, Cat in the Hat | To the Thinga-ma-jigger | Whistle for Things 1 and 2 23:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, dear cat. Now the page User:Nnemo/common.js works. :-) --Nnemo (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nnemo. You have new messages at Template talk:Lang.
Message added 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Liam987(talk) 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Intro. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Intro. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

See the talk page. I have begun a discussion there, I have put several sources there. --Nnemo (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Ireland does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! RashersTierney (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. When you recently edited Martyrs (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 11:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm Bzuk. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to The Final Countdown (film) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Note: edit comments are inappropriate. Bzuk (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Which contribution ? --Nnemo (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"All of them, Katie." FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC).

In this case, look more closely. And don't revert globally a bunch of changes because of *some* change(s) you don't like. One example among others : you reverted my constructive correction of "ISBn" to "ISBN".

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ISBN stands for International Standard Book Number, and is always written out as "ISBN", following conventional bibliographic notation standards. All other changes that were instituted, including changing the name of a publishing house, using non-standard nomenclature for aviation terms and use of punctuation, were simply wrong. There are some exceptions, however, to the recent revisions, notably, one statement that was made into a note to readers to clarify a point in the plot. FWiW, the edit comments also serve to further explain the reasons for edits. Bzuk (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Hello,

I know what ISBN means. Let me be clearer : I corrected ISBn to ISBN, you reverted this correction. Regarding the changes you find "wrong", this is what you say. I say the contrary, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style too. Some of the punctuation changes you sticked to are simply absurd. Remember : when you include between quotes stuff that is not part of the original matter, you fabricate a false quotation. Have you ever heard of logical quotes ?

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space tether, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planet Earth (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) 11:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strip search prank call scam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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) 10:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

St. Louis Encephalitis

No, it's actually called St. Louis Encephalitis not Saint Louis Encephalitis. Even the CDC calls it that on all their daughter articles. The reason they call it "Saint Louis" on their parent page has more to do with their internal naming conventions and house style, which we don't use to determine our article names. It's properly termed "St. Louis Encephalitis", which you would discover by researching the literature. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong on all of these namings. This disease is correctly written Saint Louis encephalitis. It is a disease, not a Disease. And it certainly does not deserve the capital letter you keep giving it.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you got confused somewhere along the way. I'm not saying that the disease is spelled with an uppercase letter. I'm saying that it is spelled "St. Louis" not "Saint Louis". The CDC actually uses "St. Louis" on all of their daughter articles. In all of the literature it appears as "St. Louis" not "Saint Louis". What you don't understand is that spelling out "Saint" and using an uppercase "E" are both house styles unique to certain publications. However, the common name for the virus is "St. Louis" not "Saint Louis". For example, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases uses the common name for the disease, "St. Louis encephalitis".[7] I hope that's a bit more clear for you, as I would hate to confuse you again. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blindness (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hazmat (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) 11:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sankt Anton am Arlberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 11:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Hello Nnemo,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&diff=prev&oldid=531578606

Just wondering why you introduced these blank lines at the top of the article – they leave an odd-looking gap here..? CsDix (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

To give some air. To separate blocks which have nothing to do together. Thus, when one — starting with me — wants to change something in the infobox, one finds an infobox block.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ahh, I see. But, as Beyond My Ken also reports here, this leaves an odd-looking gap at the top of the article. You can achieve what you'd like by using comment tags, but I wouldn't recommend it either (and you'd probably find it reverted as well). CsDix (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things...

Hi. A couple of points:

• The system renders two spaces after a period precisely the same way it renders a single space after a period, so changing from two to one makes absolutely no difference to the rendered page. However, the two spaces do make it slightly easier to read in the editing box (ease of reading in a monospace format was why two spaces was the standard with typewritten documents), so I'd ask you to not make those edits anymore.

• I don't have the MOS page at the ready, but I'll find it if you want me to: On Wikipedia, it is preferred that punctuation be outside quotation marks, unless doing so changes the meaning of the quotation in some way. This is different from what the outside world requires. It's not a big deal, but, again, making these edits is technically unnecessary.

• An image caption such as "theatrical release poster" is neither a sentence nor a proper noun, and therefore does not need to be capitalized. As a sentence fragment, it's perfectly happy being uncapitalized.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding the first point, I have a habit of cleaning the spaces. I did not know you read more easily with multiple spaces. I'll try not to forget. I can leave the multiple spaces.

Concerning the second point, I agree with you. I have encountered a few people who have a strange behaviour of putting really a lot of punctuation inside citations, even when the original text does not contain this punctuation. This is illogical. "This is absurd," and "that is good".

As to the third point, I disagree with you. But this is not a big deal. I will not do an edit war about this.

Have a nice day,

--Nnemo (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palace of Whitehall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint James' Park (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) 11:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation and disambiguation

Please do not add periods or other punctuation to the end of entries on disambiguation pages. They do not belong there, as stated in the manual of style. Thank you. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Surely this page and the examples shown are about about indentations, not citations. It's not a semantic matter. As the name of the page suggests, it's about indented blocked quoted paragraphs. Please do not link common words such as 'television' and 'internet' or countries. The guideline is quite clear about overlinking. Thank you. Span (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are not aware of the key difference that is at play here. The colon is not the symbol for indentation — which is just visual. The colon is the symbol for citation — which is semantic. Visual Web browsers often indent citations, but this is just an effect, among others, and that effect is not required at all. --Nnemo (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The page has nothing to do with citation, it's to do with blockquoting. Please take up any discussion on the article talk page. There is not currently consensus to make any change to the article. Thanks Span (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nnemo: Your link to the W3C doesn't pinpoint your argument. Please give us specifics as to why you think "the colon is the symbol for citation". As you can see in the markup for this discussion, the colon is wikimarkup for indentation. You are familiar with wikimarkup? --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with wiki code. :-) Your question starting with “As you can see” proves that you don't get the difference which is at play here. You see the result being indented. But why is it indented ? Because your visual Web browser indents it — note that he could do otherwise, some Web browsers do otherwise. And why does your Web browser indent the text ? Because it is a citation. Why ? Because the wiki code “:” marks text as citation. Read about Web accessibility. The docs of MediaWiki, the software of Wikipedia, say that the colon is for citations. --Nnemo (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course the template deals with citation. It is in its name ! This is a “blockquote” template. What does “blockquote” mean ? It means “citation in block”. --Nnemo (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we have some seriously crossed wires here. Span (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please show me the W3C HTML specification that shows the colon is used for any markup.

The blockquote element represents a section that is quoted from another source.

—HTML: The Markup Language — blockquote

--  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the W3C's documents is a step in the right direction. But the colon is not a symbol you will find in the W3C's documents about HTML. The colon is a symbol of MediaWiki, the software of Wikipedia. --Nnemo (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good. Now: where does it state that the colon is wikimarkup for citation? --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the colon is wikimarkup for the <dd>...</dd> element, just as the semicolon is wikimarkup for the <dt>...</dt> element. It produces indentation because most browsers indent dictionary definitions by convention. It used to be the easiest cross-browser compatible way of producing an indent and Wikimedia software just followed that. Screen reader users like Graham87 tell me that they get used to it, but it's still a primitive way of producing threaded discussions on talkpages - not to mention having little application in articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

If one of your edits is reverted then the next step, if you don't accept the reversion, is to start a talk page discussion, not to reinstate your edit, as you did here and here. See WP:BRD for a description of this process. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you consider that the person who reverted your "hereafter" back to "below" is blind and uses a screen reader, then you might conclude that "below" isn't actually as bad as you think. Users will tell you that "below" in text will be understood as "following" because sighted editors use that idiom so regularly. While I'm here, I should mention (in response to your earlier edit summary) that captions are intimately related to alt text because a screen reader speaks the alt text followed by the caption. It is essential that the two work together, and matter how good the alt text is, it is still annoying when the caption does not complement it - hence the accessibility interest. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

“Below” is ugly and, in many cases, wrong. The world is not vertical. Even in visual Web browsers, what is after is not always below. If need is, I am sure we will find a compromise in this matter.

Regarding alt text, it is often confused with caption. There are different things, which have different requirements.

--Nnemo (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I find "hereafter" far uglier, and more jarring, than "below". It is simply not a word in the same register as the rest of the page where you inserted it, being legalistic and somewhat archaic. And words are not always used in their literal sense, so the world not being vertical is irrelevant to this discussion. It really would help if you were to explain your concern at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. I have been assuming that it was to do with accessibility for people using screen readers, as for them "below" is not literally true, but while writing the previous sentence it struck me that there might just possibly be a more valid accessibility issue for people with disorders on the autism spectrum, who tend to have difficulty with metaphor. A more precise indication of the accessibility issue that you see here would be useful. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your latest suggestion, "to the following list", to be a genuine improvement. I'm sure Graham will be happy with that, and thank you for persevering. Just in case you hadn't seen it, there's a good description of how alt text and image captions interact on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Guys, can you hash out wording in the project talk page instead of here? I think everyone involved knows by now there's an edit war in progress, no need to pile on. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're at it again here. If you are reverted then the way to reach a compromise is to start a discussion on the talk page, not to edit war. Your behaviour is disruptive, and will lead to your being blocked from editing if it continues. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And I see you're doing it here. It doesn't matter whether your edit is correct or not, but once it has been reverted you need to discuss it on the talk page. Why is it that you are capable of writing edit summaries but not of starting a talk page discussion about your proposed changes? It doesn't require any different skills. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What is disruptive is reverting in block. It is unrespectful and against the rules of Wikipedia. I make many changes in a page, then if someone wants to change one of them one must not revert all in block. --Nnemo (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A contrario, reverting all in block is unconstructive and even destructive. --Nnemo (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with the edit below (and, yes, "below" is the correct word)) Don't put requirements on other people that you don't follow yourself. If you make changes in a block then it is perfectly reasonable to revert them in the same way. Start listening to those of us who are offering you good advice rather than acting as if you are the only one marching in step. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

“If you make changes in a block then it is perfectly reasonable to revert them in the same way.”

No. This is very bad. When I make 100 changes in a page, if you disagree with one you must not revert in block, you must leave the 99 other changes. What you do when you disagree with one thing is “throwing away the baby with the bath water”.

--Nnemo (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

But if you know that one of the edits is contested, then it is not acceptable to redo that contested edit at the same time as doing 99 other edits. That would look like an attempt to "smuggle" a contested edit through, or at the very least make extra work for those whom you expect to revert. Please don't edit-war ever. Even if I agree with your suggestion, I will not support restoring it through an edit-war. Why not make your case on the talk page and try to convince other editors that you have the best solution, not just the greatest stamina? --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Phil, you have reverted all in block instead of changing just what you want. Instead of discussing, too — contrary to what you preach. I will start discussion(s). Wikipedia says : Wikipedia:Be bold! But you are disturbing the construction of Wikipedia and making it much heavyier — and unpleasant. You have to stop that. --Nnemo (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the responsibility the editor wanting to change a page to start a talk page discussion if that change is contested. As several people have been telling you, you need to understand that it is your behaviour that is disruptive, not everyone else's. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Help:Wiki markup edits

I see you’re making a lot of consecutive edits to Help:Wiki markup. This tends to clutter up the page’s edit history and watchlists, which isn’t good for anyone. Would it be possible for you to make them all at once, perhaps by opening a second browser window (one for viewing and one for editing)? Or some editors find it useful to copy an article’s source to a text editor or word processor, make all their changes there, and then paste it all back in. —Frungi (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adyghe people 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only I am right, but “1 "()"s” does not mean anything. --Nnemo (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A request

Please stop being so confrontational in your edit summaries, accusing prior editors of “lying”, as here, here, and here, for instance. Edit summaries are not the place for accusations like that. If you believe that another editor was being intentionally misleading, then please bring it up on that editor’s Talk page, or take it up with an admin. —Frungi (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a misunderstanding. I assume good faith of other contributors. When I wrote “Let's not lie”, I did not say another contributor had lied. I said that the collective result was lying. This was not the fault of anyone. Note that I did not write “Don't lie”. What I wanted to say is this :

We say to the user of the help that some wikicode gives some result. But this is not true, the wikicode on the left does not give the result promised on the right. So we, collectively, Wikipedia, are giving a false promise to the user of the help. This gives bad user experience. So let's correct that. The syntax is already over-complicated. So let's not mislead users.

I will think of saying this differently.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, “lying” is intentional, so the use of the word is an implicit accusation. If the result is a lie, the cause is someone deciding to lie. If it’s unintentional (and we must assume that it is), there is no “lie”.

How about simply, “Making corrections,” or “Accuracy,” or “Precision.” —Frungi (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Slightly modified later by Frungi

Or just make the fix without editorializing. If you want to keep doing it, then so be it, but it makes discussions more confrontational. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is getting tedious, but comical. With this edit you added a newline and removed a period with the edit summary of "No, let's not give false promises to the reader. This wiki code does not produce this result. Correction. Air." --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biomimicry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planet Earth (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) 10:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peak Tram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 11:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lloyds TSB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATM (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) 11:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Nnemo. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:...

Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Template:.../doc, about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of Template:.... --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose. I will look at that. --Nnemo (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Joan Baez

I've reverted your mass delete of all but one categories, because her existential categories are not represented anywhere else. Per WP:BRD, since you boldly deleted, and I've reverted, if you further dispute any particular cat, or pair of cats due to apparent overlap, please now discuss in article Talk. Reverted your {{what}} templates, because very simple grammatical and punctuation improvements are not really what that template is for. Also note that the 'what' template allows the addition of a |reason= field, so you can explain the problem. Finally, please make your edit summaries neutral, not abusive; just state action and reason succinctly, like "Correct capitalization of common noun", not "stupid". See WP:Edit summaries. I hope you can take these comments in their intended positive light. --Lexein (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Lexein. The cats I removed are, or were, already in the Category:Joan Baez, containing the article Joan Baez. The principle on Wikipedia is to explicitly include the article only in its nearest cats. I mean : when Paris is in the cat France, we do not put for Paris the cat Europe, because the cat France is already in the cat Europe. Categories are transitive. This avoids redundancy of info. See DRY. I will look at the param you mention for the template {{what}}, I did not know it. Bye, --Nnemo (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC) [ edited for minor stuff • --Nnemo (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ]

Actually, none of the cats you removed were already under Category:Joan Baez

Extended content

1941 births Living people American anti–death penalty activists American anti–Iraq War activists American anti–Vietnam War activists American buskers American dissidents American environmentalists American female guitarists American folk singers American folk rock musicians American humanitarians American people of English descent American musicians of Mexican descent American people of Scottish descent American pacifists American Quakers American female singer-songwriters American sopranos American tax resisters Anti-poverty advocates A&M Records artists Civil rights activists Counterculture of the 1960s E1 Music artists Feminist musicians Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award winners American women activists LGBT rights activists from the United States Nonviolence advocates Orden de las Artes y las Letras de España recipients Palo Alto High School alumni People from Staten Island Spanish-language singers of the United States Vanguard Records artists Virgin Records artists

Just look at the categories shown in the diff, compared to the list in the collapsed box above, compared to the subcategories in Category:Joan Baez. None of the above appear at the diff, or in the Category:Joan Baez. Category:Joan Baez is being discussed for deletion, for containing so few direct descendants. How few are enough to keep it, well, that's under discussion.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Don't repeat yourself is not a policy, guideline, or even an essay, and has no place influencing or diverting standard Wikipedia policy and guidelines concerning categories. I'd appreciate it if you're review how categories are actually used, as an alternate navigation system on Wikipedia. --Lexein (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If the cats were not already at the Category:Joan Baez, it would mean that alas somebody has removed them. By the way, thank you for adding the “:” in my message. --Nnemo (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Note : I have slightly edited my message from yesterday. --Nnemo (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I see in the edit history of Category:Joan Baez that you added a bunch, and they were removed. I can only say they're not there right now, so removal from the article Joan Baez doesn't seem like a good idea. Can we agree on that? --Lexein (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The good idea is, and was, to remove the cats at the article Joan Baez and to place them at the Category:Joan Baez. It helps the people who navigate from the Category:Joan Baez. --Nnemo (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the guideline, WP:EPONYMOUS, "Eponymous categories should only take a category if it continues a logical hierarchy: for example, the article American football belongs to Category:1869 introductions, but that category is not a parent to Category:American football, because the content of the eponymous category is not a subtype of 1869-related material." By that same logic, the article Joan Baez belongs to Category:1941 births but the category is not a parent to Category:Joan Baez, because the content of the eponymous category is not a sub-type of 1941 births (unless all her albums and songs were born in 1941). The category itself is not needed because all the songs and albums can already be linked from one or two other articles and to and from the albums and songs categories themselves. It makes sense to have eponymous categories for Category:William Shakespeare and Category:The Beatles due to the amount of related content on these subjects beyond their own works (which is what WP:OC#Eponymous comes down to). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars,

This is non-sense.

You should learn the meaning of the word eponymous — or even better eponym.

--Nnemo (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paro Taktsang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (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) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

What do you mean when you write "Opening quotes are never closed"? I am uncertain. Neutrality^talk 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"This "does not make sense." --Nnemo (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of language period names

Hey, you have been uncapitalizing the period names for languages such as Old English and Ancient Greek, as in the article Molon labe. Please do not do this; both the period terms (Old, Middle, Modern, Medieval, whatever) and the language name are supposed to be capitalized, as seen in the language articles to which I linked above. The terms apply to a specific period of a language, defined more or less precisely by phonological and syntactic changes or political events and the dates associated with them. They do not simply indicate, for example, "English that is older than the English of the present day", or "Greek that happens to be old enough that one can call it 'ancient'". Old English is English from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England till William the Conqueror. Since the terms "old" and "ancient" are used to specify particular segments of the history of the English and Greek languages, they are supposed to be capitalized, just like the words "English" and "Greek", when they refer to a language, are supposed to be capitalized: Old English, Ancient Greek. The only situation in which these period-of-a-language names can be decapitalized is when they're not being used according to their linguistic definition, as in a situation where "old English" is used to refer to Shakespeare's language, which is Early Modern English in linguistic terminology. But I don't know if such situations actually exist on Wikipedia, and they should be removed if they do, since they probably wouldn't be encyclopedic.

Anyway, this was a long comment. Summary: "Old English" and such are correct; "old English" and such are incorrect. Please don't keep uncapitalizing. What do you say? Does this make sense? — Eru·tuon 06:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Erutuon. I don’t think this makes sense, but I will not fight a war on this. Do you have a source backing up your theory, like a dictionary ? --Nnemo (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Many sources. Look in descriptions of these languages online and in book form (such as the Introduction to Old English) and see how their names are capitalized in the middle of sentences, look at the capitalization in the entries on Ancient Greek and Old English on Dictionary.com, and look at the text of the articles on the languages themselves (Old English, Ancient Greek), as I said above. There are three types of sources for you. Are they satisfactory? — Eru·tuon 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my tone is kind of insolent because I feel like it's so obvious. Please forgive me. — Eru·tuon 21:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bis-choline tetrathiomolybdate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic (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) 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

edit dispute

kindly stop ur disruptive and abusive edits, Successor is clear to me. Bioasia2013 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop saying bullshit. See WP:Assume good faith. I have no problem with “successor”. And take care not to revert in block, this did collateral damage. --Nnemo (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Telangana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (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) 08:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Elements and tags

Tags are used to delimit the start and end of elements; it is clear that HTML elements are not the same as HTML tags. <span> (with or without attributes) is the tag which opens the span element. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyderabad weatherbox

Hi,

your renaming left a couple of double redirects, which means the template is not showing up properly in main article. Could you please fix it?

Thanks a lot! Niels^{? en | nl} 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of François de Singly

The article François de Singly has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tassedethe (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tassedethe,

Proposing this article for deletion was a bad idea (from you ?). And deleting this article would be an even worse idea.

Even the policy of Wikipedia on deletion states that we consider the potential of the article, not its content.

The content is made to be edited.

I think that now people have added sources to the article.

--Nnemo (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plesetsk Cosmodrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000s. 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) 08:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dieu Python movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python. 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) 09:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Potemkin village, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State. 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) 09:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Graphic and Image and a Graphic Image

Maybe this is a North American term not used in your area. While the words graphic and image separately mean roughly the same thing, together "Graphic image(s)" only means either "very disturbing gory image" or "explicit sexual pictures" or both. It's a warning to people who don't want to see nasty stuff. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No euphemisms on Wikipedia, please. If you want to say "very disturbing gory image" or "explicit sexual pictures", write "very disturbing gory image" or "explicit sexual pictures". It will be clear. Cheers, --Nnemo (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sex is nasty ? --Nnemo (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IPad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Web (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) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Command key, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OS (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) 09:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Columns-list/doc

Regarding you edits to documentation. The comment in question is automatically added when creating the documentation page by {{Documentation/preload}}. This comment has changed over time, and with the introduction of Wikidata for interwikis, the comment is now <!-- Categories below this line, please; interwikis at Wikidata --> and is used in thousands of documentation pages. If you have an issue with it, discuss on the preload talk page. -- Gadget850 ^talk 12:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "an interwiki"? On the left, there are interwikis links. The help says so. Things are already complicated with jargon. Let's at least use the words correctly and consistently. --Nnemo (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are editing below that line, then there is a presumption of competency. See Help:Interlanguage links and Wikipedia:Wikidata. Regardless, this is a standard comment and should be discussed. -- Gadget850 ^talk 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What would competency have against using meaningful words? I have seen these two links. They both talk of "interwiki links" and "interlanguage links". Links, links, links..., all the way. What downside do you see in the comments of my edits, by the way? You did not give any, if I remember correctly. I did give upsides of my comments. Anyway, I don't want to fight. All what you will win will be that contributors will ignore this meaningless comment, and will place interwikis links in the articles. I will not be sad about that. --Nnemo (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The comment in question, at the end, was not automatically written. It was written in these two edits, the second one by you : first edit, second edit. --Nnemo (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to Future of the Earth

Hello,

I had to undo a few of your edits to this article. The reference formats need to be maintained in a consistent manner. Spaces are not placed around em-dashes (MOS:EMDASH). Citations do not need to follow every sentence; it's best to check the existing citations first before tagging them. Since the lead is a summary of what is in the body, it is preferable to keep citations in the led to just those entries that are likely to be challenged; if there is a specific issue it can be discussed on the talk page. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You don't need to make this edit: [[Saturn|Saturn's]] -> [[Saturn|Saturn]]’s . It serves no useful purpose. Praemonitus (talk)

Hello,

The biggest problem I highlighted in the intro is the "weathering" stuff. I have followed the link, but this passage is still totally unclear.

As for Saturn, the link is on Saturn, nothing more.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Saturn possessive would still point to Saturn, but it's not a big deal I guess. Note that [[Saturn|Saturn]] is identical to [[Saturn]]. Praemonitus (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Discreet abbreviation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:Discreet abbreviation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this page should not be deleted. But I may not contest the "nomination" [sic] by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". There is no such button. --Nnemo (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no button because there is no page, which in turn was because it was speedy deleted, which was because it had been tagged with {{db-repost}}. In short: you missed the boat. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Repost of Template:Dabbr

A tag has been placed on Template:Dabbr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This template is now a redir, until better. In Wikipedia, we contributors mark some abbreviations with the template call "dabbr", or "discreet abbreviation", for accessibility. You may see the discussion that I will find back. --Nnemo (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

But why? Surely {{abbr}} is both shorter, and more intuitive? It is, after all, an abbreviation for "abbreviation". "dabbr" is longer, and much less meaningful. In short: don't create pointless redirects. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The template:dabbr has a different purpose: giving the abbreviation's meaning but without the underdotting. On fr.wikipedia.org, for example, we use the templates "abr" and "abrd". It is nice to have the consistency. And why deleting? Leaving the templates or the redirs does not hurt. --Nnemo (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Wikipedia_formatting_and_function_templates#New_template_requested_.E2.80.94_Discreet_abbreviation --Nnemo (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That discussion is from four years ago. The deletion discussion is much more recent: it was two months ago. But if what you have created is simply a redirect, it cannot give results that are different from the actual template. The dots are there, and creating a redirect will not change that. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The dots were there ...until someone finds the way to put the styling in the proper style sheet. But some people seem more interested in destroying stuff... So the dots were there, for the moment. That was not a big deal. That is just visual. The template still could be called, and was called, and it did its accessibility job. Now, calling the template gives a broken red result. Now, what about putting a styling "discreet-abbr" in the proper style sheet? Could you do that, please, @Redrose64? Thus, we could have the template "dabbr" giving an accessible result yet different from the template "abbr". --Nnemo (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, why do you want a long redirect to a short template name? {{abbr|MSLP|Mean Sea Level Pressure}} gives MSLP which has dots and is accessible. How would {{dabbr|MSLP|Mean Sea Level Pressure}} be any different? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64,

1) So that the template call work. When I want to make a discreet abbreviation, I write {{dabbr|, like {{abrd| on the french Wikipedia. Before, it worked. Now, it is broken.

2) {{dabbr|Jan|January}} would be accessible yet different, without the dots, if we put the styling in the style sheet of Wikipedia. I suggest putting the following style in the style sheet of Wikipedia: abbr.discreet-abbr { text-decoration: inherit; border-bottom: inherit; } Maybe you can do that.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's a redirect that will not work. Template redirects cannot produce effects that are in any way different from the redirected-to template. What French Wikipedia does is irrelevant: this is the English Wikipedia, we have our own policies, guidelines and other accepted practices. French Wikipedia also has templates like {{1er}}, {{Mme}} and {{N°}} which have no equivalents in English Wikipedia - that does not mean that we should create those, either. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64

A redirect can work differently ...when it is edited.

--Nnemo (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it cannot. Please stop making these demonstrably false claims. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it can. I can prove it. But, for that to be the most useful, the styling would be needed in the style sheet. You did not answer about that. @Redrose64 --Nnemo (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Prove it then. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Measurements/conversions

Hi Nnemo. You edited Hawar Islands a while back and changed the measurement conversion tool to plain text (i.e. here. Just wondering why? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The conversion template is buggy. Besides, writing just the expected characters is simpler than a complicated template call, don't you think? I probably noticed something in the text generated, something that I wanted to correct. Often, the conversion template fails to generate a non-breaking space. In your example, the conversion template call generates "miles" with a S although the number is less than 2. Cheers, --Nnemo (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nnemo. I'd argue that a template is more useful in situations like this, where the source is using an unfamiliar measurement system (unfamiliar to most - I've no real idea what a nautical mile is, but a km makes sense to me). Otherwise, you need to get a calc out to confirm that some idiot hasn't "corrected" the km number without changing the nautical mile number. The template isn't buggy regarding plurals, in that the correct form would be 1.6 miles, not 1.6 mile. Ditto, for example, 0.7 miles, not 0.7 mile, or even zero miles (although that sounds clunky). The only time you use singular is with precisely 1 mile, or when you're using the length as an adjective (or at least, I think it's an adjective: i.e. a 10 mile journey, not a 10 miles journey).

I couldn't get it to break up the km from the number, so I think they may have fixed the non-return space issue. This might not work on your display, but this here keeps the 3.0 and the km together when I alter the sentence length to push it over the line edge: xxx 1.6 nautical miles (3.0 km)

I couldn't get it to break up the km from the number, so I think they may have fixed the non-return space issue. This might not work on your display, but this here keeps the 3.0 and the km together when I alter the sentence length to push it over the line edge: xxxx 1.6 nautical miles (3.0 km)

Is it buggy in any other respects that you know of? Bromley86 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nnemo. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nnemo. 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)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nnemo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

P:medicine listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:medicine. Since you had some involvement with the P:medicine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Qing china .jpg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that File:Qing china .jpg, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Member states of the Council of Europe has been nominated for deletion

Category:Member states of the Council of Europe has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting edit examination and opinion

Greetings,

Please do visit Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie#Slander of Benazir Bhutto to examine discussed edits, if you find topic interested requesting your opinion, there.

For neutrality purpose opinion request is being made to users who significantly edited different sides of Pakistani political spectrum articles.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:What ?" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:What ?. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3#Template:What ? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)