User talk:CircleAdrian

Welcome!

Hello, CircleAdrian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

I also wanted to mention to you that there is a preview button so that you can see how your edits will look. It is located to the right of the submit button. 018 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RAN article
HI! I am the guy that wantonly and callously cut large swaths of your editing rainforest to the ground. I may have been grumpy, I may have been out of line, or I may have had low blood sugar. I am certainly no nitpicker, and I spend zero time waggling my finger at semantic arguments. It didn't sound right to me, which is a matter of opinion.... you cleared it up in a friendly and straight forward manner.. and I thank you. Restore it. I am so NOT a wikipedia expert, and actually as much as I would like to contribute there is an elitism here that is daunting, and the walls of nebulous acceptable practice are frustrating and arbitrary. So ... apologies! I won't bother it again. I know what it's like when people keep editing your work. UGH. BE WELL! Unclefishbits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry suspicion
Hello. You're being supected of sockpuppetry; see Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse. Hey Mid  (contribs) 22:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this means, or where it came from. I definitely have only ever edited Wikipedia using this account. Please explain what this means. CircleAdrian (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer your question at my talk page: it is considered a great courtesy to notify users being discussed or, as in this case, suspected of sockpuppetry; it allows users to comment and/or defend themselves or give their thoughts about the subject in question. I had nothing to do with that Sockpuppet Investigation; it was filed by a user named TCO. Here is the investigation in question. I simply have the page watchlisted, meaning that I can see any recent edits to that page. You were ultimately determined not to be a sockpuppet, and I do not think you are a sockpuppet either. In other words, the sockpuppetry suspicions have been cleared, and you can go on editing. I do not have much else to say about this. If you have any further questions I suggest you contact TCO. Cheers, Hey  Mid  (contribs) 12:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - that was exactly what I wanted to hear. CircleAdrian (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Mumma-Tudor.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Mumma-Tudor.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Balboa Creole French
Hey. I wasn't aware of the hoaxes page and if anything it would seem to encourage hoaxes, but if you want to add the info the dates the article were 3 Apr 2010 - 10 Sep 2012. Cheers, Whouk (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Added. CircleAdrian (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Econ sidebar proposal
Hello, AC. I would like to comment on your thorough discussion of the above at the talk page there, but I'm going to try addressing a somewhat prolonged problem in the current sidebar there first.

I'm afraid my thinking is along the different lines from yours, but I'd at least like to address the issue you raise. Best wishes, Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, I'm Mjs1991. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Deaths in 2013, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mjs1991 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591478660 your edit] to List of the poorest places in the United States 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Latino. Of these 100 places, 66 are in the former Confederacy 12 in Mississippi, 11 in Texas, 9 in North Carolina, 8 in Louisiana, 7 in Arkansas, 6 in Georgia, 4
 * Done & done. Thanks, robot. CircleAdrian (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rosedale, Mississippi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * The source you provided leads to a main page of the US Census Bureau. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, actually the link didn't go to the front page of the American FactFinder Advanced Search widget like it should've. I restored the text with a better link. Like I say, there's no way to link to the specific information -- the user has to use this widget to download the relevant table. CircleAdrian (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Thanks.  Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Np. Thanks for your editing vigilance. CircleAdrian (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yesterday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Song of the Year (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) 09:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for catching that. CircleAdrian (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

National Convention POV-statement
Hi, I am not sure about meaning of POV in this case. This statement is from J. M. Thomson (refs is given) and some what close note from "revisionist" Furet. Different views on a whole such as Thompson and Furet agree on minority usage. And the whole paragraph is an explanation as to the election which did represented the whole of France as popular, but anyway it was a minority of the vote - 10%. It is about National Convention as a whole and minority of the vote, nothing to say that either group, Girondins or Montagnards represented even less. Another point was about resentment against predominance of Paris, which Girondins stressed over and over, as being 1/83 departmental minority. And these minorities really carried the revolution. BTW because of that there was Jacobin dictatorship of Committees and application of Terror. Because of that the Constitution of 1793 was suspended. Different examples from different times: minority puritans in English Civil War, bolsheviks in Russian revolutions... What do you think? --Nivose (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue to me is the second half of that paragraph, but especially the note. If this is something that someone else has stated in a source, then to me you have to present it as their view ("Thompson argues that..." or what have you) — my issue is that both the paragraph and the note are phrased as if it's your own opinion that you're presenting, rather than someone else's. It's not necessarily a POV/NPOV issue, but that tag fit it best. --CircleAdrian (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, then I don't understand meaning of refs. Ref. points to Thompson, when one can find it "word in word". On the other hand if I put "Thompson argues that...", it means that some other historian "argues" something different or opposite. But there are none as note from Furet shows. And this is not point of view, not mine or Thompson's - it is a fact, following from the first "Elections" paragraph with numbers. Should I place "Dupuy argues..." after "Therefore the impact of the universal suffrage had very little effect." in first paragraph or after "On the whole, electorate had returned the same sort of men that the active citizens had chosen in 1791."? In this article I avoided presenting contradicting viewpoints of the historians. And if there are, I would certainly put them in notes with presenting both. Let say I write about Alliende elections like "Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") with narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri and 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC)". This looks fine. But if I state that Alliende won with minory vote, this somehow becomes POV. And again there is no opinion of mine in this article; if there is a ref, it is from RS "word in word". In French Revolution actual page and majority related articles refs are misrepresented or just plain wrong or don't not exist in the source they are pointed to. In this article I tried to present this history in some semblance to actual events. --Nivose (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, revert my edit if you want. Whatever. But I don't think you necessarily do understand the meaning of references. The difference between the example that you're giving about Allende and the example in the National Convention article is that saying that Allende won the vote with a minority of the vote (while possibly a POV statement in a given article, depending on the context) is a description of what happened, while "there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen" is editorializing. Who says there's no good reason to doubt that? Is it something you say? Is it something that Wikipedia, as some vast amorphous authoritative source, says? Or is it something that Thompson says? Because if the latter, then you should state that explicitly, by saying something like "Thompson argues that..." at the beginning of it.


 * Also, if your quote is coming from another source "word for word," then it should be inside quotation marks — to do otherwise is to expose Wikipedia to charges of plagiarizing. That includes if it's in a note (note 1 is incredibly unclear in that sense — who is making the statement in note 1?).


 * That, and I completely don't understand what you're saying when you say that, when you say that "there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen" or "majorities begin revolutions; minorities carry them on," there's no need to attribute these words to Thompson because "[no] other historian 'argues' something else... as note from Furet shows." First, I have no idea how you're getting that from the note from Furet; second, I have no idea how you could possibly defend such an incredibly broad statement. There must be literally thousands of professional historians who have written about the French Revolution; you're quoting two of them. Any statement you make without attribution needs to be completely backed up by your source; if it isn't, it's POV. --CircleAdrian (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article." -- I bring example of Thompson and Furet because these historians from opposite schools (so personally I don't find them so opposite) agree on the same question. The same goes from chosen cited paragraphs in the article... "". Well, there are literally thousands of professional physicists out there, but only one Newton and one Einstein. One has to know the field well to know who is who. By reading the article you can decide if it is written on the basis of really RS --Nivose (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From Help:Referencing "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution.


 * Friend, you don't get to decide which sources are authoritative & which ones aren't.
 * That's why English Wiki French Revolution is not article about French Revolution :)) All the best. --Nivose (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the quote that you give is referring to not using quotation marks in instances where you're paraphrasing someone else's quote, not quoting it directly. A direct, word-for-word quote always needs to be inside quotation marks. --CircleAdrian (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

US Senate elections 2014
I noticed that you were a fairly frequent contributor to the United States Senate elections, 2014 page. It'd be cool if you could come along to JADPhD's talk page to discuss the inclusion of his predictions into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communistgoat (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. CircleAdrian (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard D. Wolff image
Hi there. You uploaded File:Richard D. Wolff.jpg with Richard D. Wolff as source and author. Do you have the rights to that image? Did Wolff give it to you? According to http://www.tineye.com/ it appears at numerous websites. You also uploaded File:Stephen A. Resnick.jpg with Richard D. Wolff as source and author. Could you comment on that too please? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. The two pictures are both from the same photograph, of both Wolff and Resnick together. Prof. Wolff gave me this image, it is his work. He expressly agreed that the image could be freely used or re-used, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. -CircleAdrian (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Translation
Hello CirceAdrian, could you please help me in understanding or translating of a phrase from English to German? I have noticed from your user page that you are able to communicate in German on an advanced level.

In a BBC article I read that John Boehner called Donald Trump a "texting buddy". How did he mean this? What did he mean with "texting"? Is it that what we know from SMS messages?

I would be grateful for a short answer. --Furfur &#8258; Diskussion 18:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
I believe you were the first editor of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 to use the word "presumptive", which you used in the sentence (without wikilinks or references) "On May 3, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tweeted that Trump was the presumptive GOP nominee." I invite you to add any comment you may happen to have on a discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have repaired your cut-n-paste page move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ludwig Fleck Prize  a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ludwik Fleck Prize. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Channel Tunnel does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! —DIYeditor (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of lowest-income places in the United States


The article List of lowest-income places in the United States has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "inacurate data. See talk page"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)