User talk:Sceptic1954: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 24 June 2013

Welcome

Hello, Sceptic1954, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Danielklotz

Happy editing! -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Denis Avey

Hi Sceptic1954. You have been mentioned on the talk page of the Denis Avey article. I would like to ask you if you would be interested in commenting on whether you approve of the suggestion to include something more about the problems with his account in the article, (or not). --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked this account per this post. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just unblocked it per the discussion at User talk:Hardicanute Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick D , Sceptic 1954

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tildes should go on the talk page, not in the edit summary

Hello Sceptic1954. It appears you are trying to sign your comments, but the four tildes (~~~~) are supposed to go at the end of your comment on the talk page, not in the edit summary. In the edit summary they merely add noise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do I have to put my name on the Talk page or just the four tildes. I will get the answer as I reply Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature showed up correctly on this talk page in your last posting. However you are still typing the four tildes into the edit summary, for instance in this edit. Your edit summary was "tidying up~~~~Sceptic1954". There is no need for using tildes there or for you to type your name out in full in the edit summary. An edit summary should simply be a comment on what you just did. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see tildes are only on the talk page, not on the main page at all. It's a bit confusing for relative newbies!Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Howse.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernst Lobethal.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/James William Davenport Long.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rob Broomby.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jorgecarleitao (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denis Avey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradwell (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) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Approximations of π, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vieta (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) 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for you recent edits to exeligmos. I hadn't been aware of the alternative plural to saros but it is a welcome addition. If you have any questions about the ins and outs of Wikipedia feel free to leave a message on my talk page. If you have an interest in eclipses I'd be glad for you to join WikiProject Eclipses a loose collaboration by those interested in eclipses to improve/expand/create eclipse related pages. TimL • talk 04:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite TimL, My interest at present is largely limited to numbers related to eclipse cycles and I tend only to make minor contributions so I'll decline for now, but I do appreciate being asked. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (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) 11:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to "Tropical year"

In this edit you added a source to our Tropical year article, but did not create a proper bibliography entry, as explained at APA style, which is the style used in that article. I would create the entry for you, but I am not familiar with DIO. Could you explain what the name of that journal is, who publishes it, and its reputation? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

briefly as I'm just going out, look up the Home Page at http://www.dioi.org/. It's controversial alright but has some fairly eminent academics on its editorial board. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Britons

Hi Sceptic1954. I have noted your minor spat on Philippa of Hainault re her placing on the Black Britons list. Personally, I tend to agree with you that, despite this being "PC nonsense", it deserves a brief mention in the article. However, you may not be aware that there is an article specifically on this list: 100 Great Black Britons. Unfortunately, it badly needs attention: you'll see immediately that Philippa's name has been removed. It's not helped by the fact that on the "official" 100 Black Britons site, cited under external links, the names have been rearranged into an erratic alphabetical order ("Queen Phillipa" appears twice, once under P and once under Q) – although the original ranked listings do survive in the press release archived in note 1. I haven't got the time or inclination at the moment to try to unravel it all, but I draw it to your attention in case you have an interest in it. No pressure! GrindtXX (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grindt. I don't plan to get into the 100 Great Black Britons article but wonder why Philippa's name has been removed. The presence of Philippa on the original list drew my attention to her interesting central Asian ancestrySceptic1954 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Having said which I note that the editor who reverted my edit removed Philippa from the list in the 100 Great Black Britons article, so I've restored it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olaudah Equiano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Curriculum (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) 11:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Wolf

Greetings. I am the author of the paragraph you say was lifted from another website -- as you see I wrote it in 2004 (some others have tweaked the wording). The other website, a tourist plug for Austria, got it from us, not the other way around. This happens all the time (they're supposed to attribute us, but often other websites do not). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I do apologise. Quite a few things in Wikipedia do appear to be lifted without acknowledgement but clearly I shouldn't jump to conclusions. I hope you'll feel able to discuss my changed wording, if you don't like itSceptic1954 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think your wording is an improvement. Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very generous of you to say so. (P.S. I heard a wonderful Wolf recital last night and was wondering about links to early Schoenberg))Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Seacole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Curriculum (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) 12:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

poems traditionally attributed to [[William Shakespeare]] of [[Stratford-upon-Avon]]. Though most,{{citation needed]] though not all, <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22206151 questions over the plays'

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford

I didn't do a wholesale revert. That's why I explained that the film should be mentioned. I actually corrected the link, because you were linking to the word "anonymous", not the film. I've explained the reference on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topic of interest to you is covered by ArbCom sanctions--please read the links

Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If any editor engages in inappropriate behavior in this area, that editor may be placed under sanctions, including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. This is not a threat or a warning; it is nothing more than an effort to acquaint you with the sanctions under which these articles have been placed. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 ==Oxford==
 I didn't do a wholesale revert. That's why I explained that the film should be mentioned. I actually corrected the link, because you were linking to the word "anonymous", not the film. I've explained the reference on the talk page. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
+== A topic of interest to you is covered by ArbCom sanctions--please read the links ==
+[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please be aware that the [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose, at their own discretion, [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|sanctions]] on any editor working on pages broadly related to [[Shakespeare authorship question]] if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], any expected [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standards of behavior]], or any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If any editor engages in inappropriate behavior in this area, that editor may be placed under sanctions, including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision]]. This is not a threat or a warning; it is nothing more than an effort to acquaint you with the sanctions under which these articles have been placed. <!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] ([[User talk:Tom Reedy|talk]]) 22:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)