User talk:Tapered

Welcome!

Hello, Tapered, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link me that? I'm just curious to see if there is any way to incorporate that fact, and if it is worthwhile. • Lawrence Cohen 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

Hi, what help do you need? --Stephen 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox with tight cookie control. A third party tried to install while I was moving between links within Wikipedia--no linking to any other website. Is this of any importance?

I've never seen this. Wikipedia uses cookies for your logon info, but I'm not aware of other types. A better place to post your question would be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Stephen 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do Tapered (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just wanted to say I've left a comment on Talk:Lucas Neill about the line "(Cantalejo refereed the quarter-final match between France and Brazil.)" I won't repeat the whole comment here, but I just want to let you know that the comment is there, and to indicate I am keen to see us come to a mutually acceptable decision on the above line as well as helping to monitor and weed out any lines that could be considered problematic from a WP:NPOV perspective from either side of the argument. Camw (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Lucas Neill has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive.

Can you point out which of my edits is pov pushing? I'm pretty sure you'll find my edits have been to bring it back to your wording but if you can show me what specifically you are upset about that might be more helpful than making accusations against me. Camw (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no harm done. I understand the annoyance of trying to keep persistent POV edits out of BLP articles. On the referee issue, I still don't agree that it has a place but I'm more than willing to listen and discuss on the talk page. Camw (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it borders on Original Research to infer something from the appointment without that being said by a reliable source. As I mentioned on the talkpage you previously said that it probably wasn't important to include it, so I don't see why that has changed. I believe we'll get just as many fanatics pushing their POV unless we have an official statement or reference that it was reviewed and correct. I'm on my mobile at the moment so I can't really do much searching for references but I'll try to have a look over the next few days and in the meantime we'll just have to try to watch it closely. Camw (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, the term you removed as vandalism (Olyroos) from the Neill article is the correct nickname/common name for the Australia national under-23 football team, please see the official Football Australia news reports on the last few fixtures here. Hopefully no big deal, just wanted to explain why I changed it back. Camw (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to raise the RfC, if a reliable source doesn't back what the statement implies it shouldn't stay per all kinds of policies, WP:BLP for a start - which clearly says that material that is a conjectural interpretation of the source should be removed. I believe this information is conjecture unless there is a reliable source provided that discusses and agrees with the implied meaning of the statement and have removed it per the policy. I am still travelling, so may not be active in an RfC until early next week. I'm sorry that it has come to this as it doesn't seem worth so much time being expended, espcially as both views are represented with relevant sources in the article now without this one being debated. Camw (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this message was from you. To be honest, I'm a little mystified, since the exchange on the talk page didn't seem like anything that needed to be cooled down. And while I realize the discussion over your preference to include Cantalejo's assignment in the Neill article has been going on for a while, the current round of discussion hasn't run its course, and I've been making a good faith effort to include viewpoints that opposed the Australians'. I've never been in an RfC before so you'll have to excuse any novice mistakes from me, but I'll see if I can get my two cents in. --Mosmof (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you wish to leave a message or a comment for somebody, you should use their talk page, not their user page, as you did here [1]. Here's the talk page: [2]. I've also replied to you on the article's talk page. The battle was in April/May of 1911. He might have very well made movies in 1912. There's a reliable source to back up his participation in it.radek (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on articles' talk page. Note that IMDB is NOT considered a reliable source, certainly not more reliable than an academic work by a professional historian - which isn't to say IMDB is wrong about the number of movies he made or anything. From what I understand, in 1911-13 he wasn't well known and most of his roles were very minor ones. Also, the production of movies was done differently than it is now. So even if that information on IMDB is true, I don't see anything unfeasible about him taking part in the battle.

Also, when leaving messages on a new topic use the "new section" button.

I also want to say that I appreciate you bringing this up on talk page first and discussing it. Thanks! Wish a lot of veteran editors showed a similar courtesy more often.radek (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to try to come up with reliable sources to prove what you think you have heard. I've looked and can't find anything specific that shows either opinion. Trackinfo (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already gone ahead and changed it based on your own research. I'm avoiding getting into an edit war about this point for now, but I suggest you come up with a source that verifies what you have posted is accurate. Trackinfo (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. You have new messages at WT:AIV.
Message added 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have a hand written copy of the song Nelly Gray dated in the 1800's. The person who wrote it name was Nathaniel B Ridgeway.Who became a Doctor and die in 1903.So my question is.Who really wrote the song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.85.53 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. You have new messages at DanielPenfield's talk page.
Message added 14:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I just found out that, you changed the word litre to liter in the article, to enforce the British to colonial spelling rules. I feel sorry that you made a mistake by doing this. You managed to edit the file title of an image. This leads to the fact that the image no longer is shown in the article. Sometimes things are not gray but they are black or white. Please have a look whom you try to force to use colonial style Englih, a computer will not follow the rule even if it is a wikipedia server also storing the MOS:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English rules. --Stone (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got you! I simply have a different way to read a text and most of the time I do not get the difference and sometimes I even do not understand why anybody wants to change it. But after reading the rename discussion on the windshield wiper I know that there must be something in the discussion.--Stone (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My passport does not show the face of the Queen! But the Empire (for sure the most evil one ever) I would have lived in has faded after 12 not the promised thousand years. --Stone (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket and baseball two games I never had any urge to get in close contact to, although I liked the The Bad News Bears. My Australian co-worker always said there is nothing better that several six packs of beer, a blanket and a game of Cricke(t to hide the fact that you want to drink lazy in the sun).--Stone (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you should do a bit more research before pointing fingers and playing the blame game. This have been discussed in the talk page. You should stop wasting everyone's time with these stupid reverts and posts. ashwinikalantri ^talk 14:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor who hid identity: I DO appreciate the effort that goes into maintaining WC2011. I don't appreciate original research. I abide by that stricture & agree w/ it. Henceforth I'll abide by the other stricture you pointed out. I don't agree w/ it entirely, but can see its efficacy. There IS a self-serving element to my disagreement--I'm at least proficient at mental & physical fighting. I invite you and anyone else stumbling across this to consider the 'contect of character' revealed by hiding an identity. Were you trying to anger me, to draw me into further mockery? You were 50% successful. Tapered (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?! And who is hiding identity? Where, from whom? ashwinikalantri ^talk 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you happen to have a look at Category:Afar people before reverting my edit? There you would find the categories pointing to the different countries. I think having them in the more general category would be more useful, especially since the text contains that information -- & I would assume that any reader would look there for the information. -- llywrch (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your response. Can you make the change you propose? I will then be able to see what you propose, & we can go from there. -- llywrch (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as being counterproductive. What value do you see in adding categories that are supersets of those already connected to an article? Having those additional categories is redundant, confusing, & makes it harder to find useful categories. I see no useful purpose to do that, any more than how to link every word in an article. Lastly, I found the language in your last comment condescending, if not offensive. If you haven't noticed, I have been trying to work with you -- although I don't understand your comments at times. -- llywrch (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I told you I was offended by your message, & you think I'm evaluating your character? If you want to convince me you're right, ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, & see what someone says there. Maybe that will show you're right, maybe that I'm right. But right now I have no clue how to work with you, & if you can't work out a disagreement over something trivial like categories, I doubt you are going to get along with anyone on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving the categories as they are now. Tapered (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting your Proposal to Delete rationale: there was a previous very similar one on the same article, on 27 December 2007 at 16:59. This led to a discussion, still on the Talk page. Maybe worth resuming that discussion there? AllyD (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your last two edits was a minor edit. Please only use this tag when it is justified. Thanks. --John (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a new message on my talk page. – anna 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply that the Dodgers aren't moving seems perfectly reasonable response to an IP who makes a request to include cities that the Dodgers might move to (a list that is clearly empty). Instead of jumping on me, you should be jumping on the IP for making such a ludicrous and CRYSTAL request Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the pro-life movement article make it appear that you have not read the cited source. Your changes go against that source, and are themselves uncited and unsupported. Please revert yourself. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor plainly believes that Administrators of Wikipedia have moved on and left him in charge. Since the edits in question were linguistic and semantic, reference rules didn't apply to them. It was most likely, though by no means certainly, an attempt to subtly intimidate this editor to revert his work, by misuse of his position as a Reviewer, and by twisting the rules for ideological reasons. He has edited out three humorously barbed replies of mine fr/ his Talk page. None were abusive and two actually addressed the issues of the edits. The third warned him that if he checked his dipstick, he'd find his sense of humor low. He is plainly USING WIKIPEDIA AS AN IDEOLOGICAL PLATFORM, and NOT straightforwardly. (I had edited his comment out, but decided it would serve my purposes and Wikipedia's to leave it out in the open.) Cheers!Tapered (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You overreacted to the above message which is mild and neutral. There is no attempt at intimidation, just the start of a discussion.

In notes to my talk page you have mistaken my ideology, and here in this response you have mistaken whether I am driven in my editing by my position on abortion. I edit Wikipedia to make articles be more informative and neutral, to remove bias.

The best place for discussion of the specific issues is on the article's talk page: Talk:Pro-life movement. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the article are highly disruptive and your explanations are combative. Please stop using Wikipedia as your WP:BATTLEGROUND. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. My edits usually stand up because they're verifiable and temperate (unlike some of my Talk). Your edits are POV, and I notice you've been banned in the past. That means that you've used WP as a battlefield. Tapered (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

−

− − 1)When a group of people declare their belief system "pro-life," by definition groups of people in disagreement are "pro-death." This is simple logic.

− − 2)Life exists on earth in many forms. The are 6 billion human lives on the planet now. The form of life for which the anti-abortion folk advocate is life in a mother's womb. To claim the title "pro-life" as advocates for this small slice of life is megalomaniacal.

− − 3)Therapist, Pscychiatrist vs. Abortionist. Therapists' sole professional function is therapy. Therapy had never been illegal. Psychiatrists' sole professional function is the psyche (though they are MDs).Psychiatry has never been illegal. Most physicians who perform abortions engage in other functions of medicine. Abortion has been illegal. When it was illegal, the people who performed it, who were only occasionally physicians, were called "abortionists." Hence the historical baggage and associations of the word "abortionist," vs "therapist, " or "psychiatrist.--Tapered (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

− −

− − −

Hello Tapered,

− This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

− If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.

− ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

−

You have violated the 1RR rule at Pro-life movement, according to the report at WP:AN3#User:Tapered reported by User:Haymaker (Result: ). (This allows a maximum of one revert in 24 hours to any abortion-related article). You might be able to avoid a block if you join that discussion and promise to follow the 1RR rule in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

− −

− −

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for 1RR violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Tapered reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

− −

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tapered (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was, indeed, a technical violation. It was a violation of the letter, but not the spirt of Wikipedia. There are several advocates of the 'pro-life movement' who subtly use language to bend the page to their POV. I missed one of their edits, and without considering the 1 edit rule, did 2 edits. I can assure you that I'll be VERY careful to adhere to the LETTER of the rules henceforth. Waiting to edit is less of problem than having the block notice on my page. I'd be happy to agree to refrain fr/ editing for up to 72 hours, for example to have the block notice removed fr/ my page. Thank you for your attention. Tapered (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring on the basis of your edit summaries ([3] [4], comments on the talk page and above comment. You were probably lucky to have only been blocked for 24 hours. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

−

−

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tapered (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please note. The second edit was a minor cleanup of the first substantial edit. It was housekeeping. I believe this reinforces the orginal appeal. Thanks again for attention. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

see above Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 24, 2011.

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Thank you very much for restoring documented background material to Robert Stone, for being perceptive and engaged to the extent that you recognized that this material was deleted some years ago!Christian Roess (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the standard practice is to put the constituent state of the time that these people were born in. Whether Cordoba is today in Spain and has been for centuries is totally irrelevant, especially that those people have nothing to do with Spain: Different culture, different religion, different system of government and different people; they were kicked out after the "reconquista" may I remind you. Tachfin (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practice is not universal. Information is factual. Cordoba is in present day Spain, as of this post. Removing this information is not justified. Tapered (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. I don't see how this can be such a crucial information to the article. Some people want to over-emphasis Spain over Moorish culture which it had nothing to do with. Tachfin (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I appreciate your work, but re. the discussion on the talk page, I hope you are aware that even if said real estate project had been a success, calling Ordos a "city" would still be a complete misnomer?

Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "District" instead of "City" is non-conforming in standard English and Wikipedia English, so substituting "City" isn't a complete misnomer. And the google search results show that the real estate development is known as "Ordos City." There certainly needs to be some sort of explanation in the title, or the opening of the article to clarify the official names of the area and standard usage, especially for anyone using local documents, maps, etc. Regards Tapered (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you modified the Campus Safety section of the Drew University Wikipedia site in a way that could be construed as biased. If the crime and alcohol stats show a low rate of violent and property crime, but a high rate of alcohol-related issues, I think we need to mention everything, or not mention it at all. Debbie W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious but why did this edit break the link? Both History_of_Syria and History of Syria link to the same article so there is no need for the pipe or _. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I GOT IT here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tapered. Regarding your comment about this article, why not go ahead and make the changes you suggest? If someone objects, then we can have a discussion, but it's quite possible that that won't happen. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop with removing the legendary from the article. Although you might have a point that most of the time the word is peacock language, in this case this not true. Aspects of his life became more legend than true. Just read the article, see the legend of Luciano's foulard, for instance, or: "While still alive and after his death Vizzini’s stature as an all powerful Mafia boss rose to mythical proportions." Thank you for your understanding. - DonCalo (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Stuart Scharf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (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, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. Used curly brackets instead of squared. All the other updates I made to the article were lost when you reverted, so I reverted your edit with changes. (Have updated the 40-man rosters of about 15 MLB teams since the regular season ended last week.) Zepppep (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dogue de Bordeaux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mastiff (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, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I completely take the word "politician" back to describe Lew, because people do confuse politicians as elected officials. But if you do go to the wiki article for Politician it reads: "a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making in the government" including political appointees. But either way politician, government administrator, banker, budget wizard, or whatever combination of those you like is fine with me.

A proposal has been initiated on the Drew University talk page regarding how notable alumni, faculty, and presidents should be listed. Feel free to join the discussion. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Salvatore Giuliano 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! The first version of the article used "mythologised" which is English English: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvatore_Giuliano&oldid=1327225 DonCalo (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Salvatore Giuliano 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) 20:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. You have new messages at DonCalo's talk page.
Message added 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DonCalo (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominican University of California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Rafael (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) 11:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for bringing that to light. I think that a better title might be "Keep on Dancing (1963 song)" or "Keep on Dancing (1960s song)". There are other hit singles with titles that are the same or similar: Keep on Dancing. What do you think?Hoops gza (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have made all of the appropriate changes. Happy editing!Hoops gza (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on about retitling the page. You might like to give your opinion here: Talk:Keep on Dancing (1960s song).Hoops gza (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the article now: Morris Levy. The ice jam seems to have broken.842U (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giovanni Verga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1922) was an [[Italy|Italian]] [[Literary realism|realist]] (''[[Verismo (literature)|Verismo)]]'') writer, best known for his depictions of life in [[Sicily]], and especially for the [[short story]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. You have new messages at Talk:Dominican University of California.
Message added 06:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paris1127 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily remove it. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no policy saying images should be named by the name they were uploaded. For titles under images I would suggest WP:IUP#NAME. And may I point out that the same image is clearly identified as Ivan Gundulic (Giovanni Gondola) also on Italian Wikipedia as well [5]. Also the use of galleries are discouraged unless they have a: encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. For more information regarding the use of galleries I would suggest reading up on WP:IG. Shokatz (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but let's pause for a second. Why add those images when we already have a CoA in color (in the infobox) at the top of the page? Also I don't have nothing against adding Ghetaldi-Gondola CoA but there is absolutely nothing in the article regarding this, no explanation whatsoever. Don't you think someone who doesn't know anything about this family will be confused by it? From what I know, Ghetaldi-Gondola family is a completely separate family created when the last member of the Gondola or Gundulic family (it's completely irrelevant since both versions are equally valid) Sigismund died without children. He adopted his nephew (son of his sister who married a Ghetaldi) and he left him his possessions, his nephew added the name Gondola after that. So the family in question is actually a cadet branch of Ghetaldi in the male line. Instead of nonsensical arguing about images, why not improve the content of the article first, to which you can then supplement some of these images in a meaningful manner? Shokatz (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a look to the take page. User DIREKTOR seems to dislike my sensible approach based on analuyis of secondary sources. Is it better to decide on a whosesale Google research? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re this question, for the reason I gave I think. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Burke (composer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rambling Rose (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) 09:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microsoft, 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) 09:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Microsoft shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. gsk 07:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I am calling regarding your XP panic in Microsoft article. Your recent counter-revert edit summary reads: "Addressed on talk page of reverter". I am afraid I fail to see anything in that regard on my talk page; i.e. you didn't even send me a message, let alone "address" it. (Addressing it would be me and you reaching an agreement or proceeding as WP:DR instructs.) In addition, when a person reverts you and states a policy supporting it, you are not allow to counter-revert. (Doing that is called edit-warring.)

If you are still interesting in addressing anything, you must be prepared to do some heavy modifications to your original edit, which is, I am afraid, a far cry of what Wikipedia deserves.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
Message added 07:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

gsk 07:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tapered reported by User:GSK (Result: ). Thank you. gsk 07:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a prejudice against people with barnstars, then hear from me, who has no barnstars, has been blocked five times before and is now in forced retirement state:

1. If the world is about to come to end, no Wikipedia editor would accept to put it in the article about "world" or "end"; just "end of the world" article. If you had waited, you'd have seen how other editors (with or without barnstars) would gang up against you, so much so that you might have been tempted to shout Sock! All Sock!
2. You are not exonerated at all. WP:BLOCK says admins must not block someone when this block stops nothing. But... next time, they might block you without a warning.
3. Make no mistakes, 3RR does not say you are allowed to do three reverts. It just says three reverts is not accepted from anyone, no matter how respected he or she is. For the likes of me and you, sometimes, it is one revert = block without warning, unless we exhibit an extraordinary degree of niceness and team spirit.

Fleet Command (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read your reply and I laughed so hard that I got pain in my sides. It reminds me of a joke: Once, a foreigner travels to England with his car. Now he didn't know that the British drive their on the other side of the street, so he was annoyed that all cars were coming at him angrily. When the traffic controller interrupts the radio program and says "drivers be advised, an idiot is driving the wrong way in such and such highway", he think "I sure see more than one idiot". And here you are like the foreigner: Three editors contest your action and tell you it is wrong; and you are still sure that you were right and every other editor was wrong. And to top it off, you say "I think that one small reason I didn't get banned was making a very good [...] case against Codename." (I and the admin already told why you are not blocked; Read #2 above. The admin said your case was "sub-optimal", meaning that it didn't influence his decision.)

If you think you were right and everybody else was wrong, try submitting Salvatore Giuliano article for Good Article review. Fleet Command (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I do laugh at my past mistakes. With a rough calculation, I was 14.9 times dumber than you, so every two times that I laugh at you (if I do that) I laugh at myself 29 times. It is always best to learn from mistakes and laugh at them: Education + plus fun.

Now, if you want to know what's wrong with your edit and how you can avoid such mistakes in the future, I'll be at your service. Otherwise, I wish you good luck. Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you might be interested to join a RfC on House of Gondola. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1-2-3 (Len Barry song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI (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) 08:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a link to the article you refer? Because the next reference in the in paragraph [6] only supports Cruyff's statement, but not that "the other players were surprised at his lack of technical accomplishment". If it is unsourced, "lack" is really going a bit too far in the WP:NPOV direction. --Jaellee (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add refs to Raab's book, but never got around to it with a job change. They're added now. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he got on the jury at all is a pretty big deal--remember, his presence meant that Tumac was guaranteed at least a hung jury. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tapered.

Just wanted to give you a heads up that I left a reason for my removal of a controversies section on the talk page at Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup#Zimbabwe vs Ireland in case you weren't watching that page. I also rewrote the section to more accurately reflect a better source.

Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Proposed Deletion tag has been removed for any reason, it can never be readded for any reason. If you think Fannie Pennington should be deleted you must use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- GB fan 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Won't happen again. I got involved only because I submitted an article for deletion, on the same day, that did go through. I left sound reasons for THIS deletion on the Talk page that weren't addressed by the Admin. Only "I see notability claims." I'm going to pursue this, just to see what happens. Regards Tapered (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bagumba Ekft signed some of his comments at the AfD as "Joseph Hector," without creating an account. Still looks like sock puppetry to me. Listing "Joseph Hector" as a sock seemed to me the quickest way to illustrate the behavior. FWIW, this is my first report, and the behavior of the editor(s) in question is unorthodox. Tapered (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjstar35 instead? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ekft.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got that! Tapered (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when welcoming users, you appear to be copypasting the contents of Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia into their uaer talk pages. Please don't do that, it is causing a number of problems. These include: the page being put in categories where it has no right to be, such as Category:Wikipedia basic information; section edit links cease to appear; the page being marked as move-protected when it isn't. Instead, a number of substitutable templates exist to welcome users, and many of these are listed at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates or displayed at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. If correctly used, such as by adding {{subst:welcomemenu}} to the user talk page, they will not cause any of the problems that I've been noticing at User talk:208.93.81.189, User talk:67.1.202.115, User talk:BrianVN and others. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's easier to use the templates, anyway, and the last greeting I did was standard. I know the pages where I did this. Is it a good idea to remove/replace the mistake? Thanks and regards. Tapered (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you could please remove the copies Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia and add a welcome template instead, that would be great. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for the delayed response; I hadn't come on in a while. Yes, I realised what happened, and I'm sorry about this; there is an official website called Tutto Juve which does biographies and analyses of former Juventus players "Gli Eroi in Bianconero", and someone else's blog "Il Pallone Racconta" has copied the same text, so I accidentally put the blog link instead of the official link. I can fix that now. Best, Messirulez (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Thanks. I suspect the two issues were caused by different problems, as they use different editing tools and were made at different times, but I'm not sure what's going on with 'em. I'm in-and-out at the moment; once I get in later tonight I'll try and figure out what happened. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how the RFC turns out I want to take this opportunity to remind you that one of the ways editors can mark themselves as making disruptive edits is by disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You're heading into dangerous territory here, all the more so since consensus was pretty damn clear last time around. From an administrative perspective I'll let this play out just so you can have your official redress for reverences, but know that future attempts at this sort of thing will likely be treated as hostile editing and will more than likely result in page protection and/or editorial blocking. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote an appropriate passage from the disruptive editing page that relates to or describes how my RFC is "disruptive." If I disagree with a concesus, RFC is a logical and recommended procedure. Describing it as "disruptive" and 'subtly' suggesting that it will lead to a reputation as a "hostile" editor, and that it's "dangerous" behavior reminds me of people I occasionally had to rub shoulders with in my early years in New Jersey. In a word, an attempt at intimidation. That's not very Wikipedian. Tapered (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I'm grateful to 'doze gize' in Joisey. They helped me understand intimidation in its many forms. (-: Tapered (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
Message added 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said now that the native range of the pheasant family is restricted to Asia, you may want to consider if southern Asia would be more accurate.

Apologies for the snarking, I rose to the bait too easily. On a more serious note, I don't agree with your native speakers/ESL speakers. I've been to several parts of southern California where English isn't the first language of the local population, and I'd hazard a guess that there are tens of millions of US citizens for whom that's the case (not to mention French Canadians). Conversely, English is spoken to first-language standards by millions in Asia and Africa (and it's the official language or joint official language of several). I've heard young adults from Mumbai talking amongst themselves in fluent English, and there are Indian editors on Wikipedia who even correct my deathless prose! Although I think you are wrong, I don't want to get too bogged down in the numbers game, and the fact is that even if you were correct, it wouldn't give US English a special status. There was a suggestion many years ago that Wikipedia should be standardised to US spelling, since the majority of editors are from your country. Of course the immediate response from most non-American editors was a threat to vote with their feet if that transpired Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a recent edit that you made to User talk:NAQVI because it was an inappropriate use of a warning or blocking template. The user's edit did not constitute vandalism rather it was a good faith addition. Your level 3 warning (without level 1 and 2) and additional strong comment was harsh. Please always assume good faith and try and explain the issues in a polite manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've revurted yur revurzion. NAQVI made 66! spelling changes to the article, not citing anee refurenz for doing so, also changing the burth daet andd plaes, without refurence. This meets the definitions of both Silly and Sneaky Vandalism. (You'll find silly immediately above sneaky.) It's also very destructive of time, and IMO eliminates an assumption of good faith in the matter. Ferreting out 68 damaging edits AFTER easy reversion is possible is work and effort. NAQVI hasn't made very many edits, and several of them were vandalism. In terms of the time wasted cleaning them up, they were quite destructive. I would recommend that any other editor, whether or not he/she was the one to clean up the mess, use the same level and quality of language to head off a bad start at Wikipedia. If you'd like to clean up my spelling, it's a free sample of what was involved...and you don't have to search...it's all in 2 sentences. Regards Tapered (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've sent a message to an Admin, asking for an opinion of this disagreement. I'll abide by his decision, so please leave things as they are for the moment. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS On reflection I did a google search and DID find some Shukoh spellings. I've re-re-verted. I'm still going to send a harsh message with the new, lower level warning. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feldenkrais Method. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, for anyone reading this, the above warning was a tactical maneuver to stop me from editing an article in a way that "Alexbrn" and others didn't like. Definitely a bad faith edit on (I presume) his part. Tapered (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add photos of guns to articles about mass shootings. This isn't necessary as the guns are wikilinked. Also, a photo of a gun lifted from Commons is not the actual gun used in the shooting, so it gives a misleading impression.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the weapon models aren't labeled as the actual weapon, and because this isn't a tabloid claiming such, that argument is absurd. There's no Wikipedia guideline about gun photos @ crime related articles, and I've not read anything about wikilinks obviating photo placement. If you have, please send a link. Also, I'm about to post something interesting to your talk page. Tapered (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1911 pistols, glocks and ARs have many shared components. A "model" for an AR is simply what's stamped or roll marked on the lower receiver and there is no photo that would distinguish it or identify it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise Tapered not to write anything about the technical aspects of guns unless he/she is reasonably knowledgeable in this area. Even "reliable" sources are often written by journalists who are not gun experts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
2. Then click on "Templates".
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
4. Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
5. Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
6. Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

• Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header   ==References==   is near the end of the article.
• And check that   {{Reflist}}    is directly underneath that header.

7.  Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

I noticed that when you added a reference to 2013 Santa Monica shooting you manually put in the information. I know you're an experienced editor but thought this step-by-step guide on how to use the cite templates for referencing might be useful to you. Please don't be offended that I placed this on your user talk page, delete away if it's unwanted. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read Wikipedia is not censored before using the word "censorship" in a content dispute about the inclusion of an image. As that policy states, discussion about the inclusion of an image should focus on whether the image is appropriate, not whether it is offensive. The debate about the images of guns has to do with their appropriateness, and the censorship policy is not applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the debate, it was Masem who suggested that the image might offend. To counter that assertion, I referenced the example of what would be offensive @ Wikipedia--the interpolation of porno as a medical image. And the language of the censorship page, which you linked to, specifically states that beyond really dramatic, and possibly deliberate shock, editing Wikipedia to avoid offending sensibility IS censorship. Do you need the exact quote? It's in the debate. Also, please note that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar firearms photos in firearms articles. Tapered (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you read Masem's post @ the Noticeboard? It's a "soft" suggestion of...censorship. Tapered (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give you some unsolicited advice? You're not going to get any traction making emotional arguements. Provide substantive arguements based in sources and backed by policy and guidelines. Unless you intend to do that, you're wasting your time and at least two other editor's time. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy your ?sense of humor? Tapered (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that articles can only go through the proposed deletion procedure once: an article that his been prodded and deprodded is not eligible for deletion via WP:PROD. Since DeskSite was prodded and deprodded in 2009, you will need to go ahead with the AfD you started to file earlier. I do see some merit in your argument that although there are lots of press releases, it's not quickly apparent that there's much in the way of independent reliable sources. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was a difference! It's not explained well @ WP:AFD. I've been using the Twinkle gadget. Oy! Thanks! Tapered (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I don't use the Vector skin so it displays a bit differently for me, but on Twinkle, right next to the "prod" choice there should be another one labeled "xfd", which will give you a menu of choices and enable you to go easily through the otherwise rather laborious procedures to initiate a deletion discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings also, and I appreciate the kind feedback. I am indeed an avid boxing fan, but I'm merely going around standardising articles in terms of getting the statistics up to scratch. Really monotonous stuff. As such, I rarely invest any time looking over the bulk of articles, and that would include Spinks and his legal issues—I know absolutely nothing about those. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I said that I would start write a math book for everyone. I just started: b:Be smart - learn mathematics! It's a bit unusual; I need to apply "American" tactics to make sure it's read there. This is important because since today, everybody knows the US must be more educated. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. 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)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chuck Blazer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GiantSnowman 07:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because your Level 2 Vandalism warning was so inappropriate, my reply is at Talk:Chuck Blazer. Tapered (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personally attacking users that you don't agree with, or using a condescending tone, as you did multiple times on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride. The purpose of an Afd is to build consensus. Lyrda (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said your edits were verbose. I joked they would eat up all of Wikipedia's bandwidth. I said that your edit pattern was close to disruptive editing. All civil, one humorous—but making a valid point. I stand by all of them. Your accusation is way off target, and for someone who wrote as you did at that AfD to extoll any Wikipedia policy is ironic. I don't think you're here to here to build an encyclopedia, and if you continue the pattern, you may be asked to leave. Tapered (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of AfD is to determine whether listed articles belong in Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask all you want, but if you don't abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AFG you may be the one ending up leaving. Lyrda (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an AfD is to establish consensus about the notability of the topic. It's not a vote, no matter how many deletionists and administrators will treat it as such. Lyrda (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you're at it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs&curid=464862&diff=786675822&oldid=786675488 Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ill write something longer in a day or two. In the meantime, you might amuse yourself with the AfD article and Lyrda's page. Tapered (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to write a screed, but came to my senses. By the way thanks for writing STICK it. That includes you, in a small way, in the incivility. Here's an external link that may annoy you. Spotify playlists Tapered (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your efforts at WP:AfD/Nicolás Aguirre. You went to great effort, were very thorough and turned a lot of stones. Thanks!Jacona (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JaconaFrere:Thanks to you! Tapered (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[7] It removes the colon from the ping so I can add my own comma afterwards, which is nicer to read/receive methinks. If you're curious, you can always look up the parameters at a template's documentation page, e.g., Template:Ping czar 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any more personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIMI ELSA will see your editing privileges affected.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Tapered (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that the creator of the article was in a terrible position, having had an article accepted and nominated for deletion in very short order. Neither User:Legacypac nor User:SeraphWiki behaved well. Good behavior would have been to state the history of the article in their writing. If they had, I'd have written my "delete" recommendation differently. And Legacypac, while much more civil than myself, has otherwise behaved badly. Regards Tapered (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what I consider personal attacks are definitely the remarks about real estate developers, and likely, "sneaky." Could you please confirm? Tapered (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After commenting on the above AfD, Tapered, I came here to post a formal NPA warning template. However, I see that Winged Blades of Godric has also already accurately established the fact that your comments were inappropriate. I see also that this is not the first time that such commentinbg on AfD discussions has been brought to your attention. Please bear this in mind when participating in debates, otherwise, as Godric explains, this could lead to editing sanctions. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to the warning by Winged was to further attack my editing. I have not "behaved badly". You need a lesson in how AfD and AfC works. At this point you are a net negative in AfD and if you continue such behaviour I expect it will go poorly for you. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and AfC are a pain in the ass. Especially AfC. There are plenty of articles, and creation should be way at the bottom of priorities. Improvement of existing, and deletion of garbage need to be priorities. I was mistaken to take the part of creation of an article of dubious priority. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your courtesy notification for this prod, since I wasn't the creator, but you identifed me as someone that once spent a little time on the article. I think I'll leave it alone and see if anyone else wants to remove the prod for AFD. My edits were part of the Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue which attacked the big backlog of unreferenced BLPs at that time (and elimininated it, at least when we were done!) We generally only prodded or AFD candidates where we could find nothing. Compared to 100s of Gaelic football players, guys like this one seemed to at least have some potential.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tapered. 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)[reply]

Hi Tapered, just wanted to let you know it seems to me that the "disruptive editing" warning template you placed here: [8] goes against the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline, and so I'm going to take the liberty of removing it. I hope that's ok. Clearly the newcomer meant to leave a good faith comment, but did so in the article instead of the talk page. No need to "throw the book" at them for a simple mistake! I moved their comment to the talk page and left them a polite message about it. Please see also Talk:Turkish Cypriots#Comments about "sold brides". Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-revert. On second thought, you're correct. Tapered (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I apologize, but I had to revert your reversion of my edit on this page. The information that I added is documented in Zimmer's New York Times obituary, which is the already cited reference. Please search it the word 'wholesale' or count paragraphs and check paragraph 17 for his father's job, and paragraph 18 for his date of marriage.

There is also a similar but now redundant response on my talk page. I tried to respond that way first, but it looks like you don't have a regular user page, so I thought that you might not get that response.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I missed the new footnote in that paragraph. If you leave a message for me on my Talk page, it shows up. Regards Tapered (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelly_Gray_(song)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J.W.Myers_-_Darling_Nellie_Gray_(1904).ogg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdg-Qo1rIks (starts at 1:58)

Greetings. Please read the "welcome" message on your Talk page, paying particular attention to the links for sourcing and original research. Tapered (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Similarly, "song B is set to the tune of song A" isn't my interpretation of facts, but simply a fact. Listening to the two songs should be more than enough "proof" for this.

You're acting in good faith, which is good...but it's not enough. "Paris is the capitol of France," is in no way comparable to "I recognize this melody." Thats your opinion, and it's original research. Neither is eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Take some time to read the guidelines, which can be boring, but it's worth the time. And please sign anything you write with four tildes.

If you look at the history of the "Nelly Gray," you'll notice that on 10 April of this year, I included the song as the same melody as Faded Love. If you go to Talk:Faded Love, you'll see that I waited 6 years to find a source to add that fact to that article. Tapered (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]