User talk:Geke

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 19:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dowry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trousseau (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) 13:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the right way to answer the above, but thank you for letting me know. That you saw this edit so soon may mean that this article is hotly discussed, and in that case I apologize for not being more careful. But I really thought this change could not be disputed, as the original words "are rejected" were rather vague, without specifying that the text has been rejected for inclusion in the Bible, and the verb being in the present further obfuscated the intended meaning. Instead of adding all that explanation, I chose to just replace "are rejected", also because the link to Apocryphal would give anyone interested a better understanding of the situation than could be put in this place.
 * Correction: maybe the phrasing as in the separate article Gospel of Peter could be put in here? It goes like this:
 * "which were rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal"Geke (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand why you changed what you changed and I am not personally disputing it. However, there is always the chance that someone will dispute it in some way or consider the prior wording to be superior. As some editors have their filters set to ignore "minor" edits, they would not have the chance to review this edit. Easy rule of thumb: If an edit changes the meaning of the text it is not minor.
 * (As a side note, the section in question needs a bit of a tweak. From the outside looking in, I think the use of the word "apocryphal" is potentially problematic. There are several different interpretations of the word. I hear it used to mean "fictional" on a regular basis. The narrower definition, though, hinges on who is speaking. "Apocryphal" writings might be false, heretical, of questionable authorship, esoteric, etc. Saying the RCC deems these works apocryphal is unenlightening to those most likely to be wondering "Gee, why don't I remember seeing these books in my Bible?" Further, it fails to acknowledge that most of the texts in question are rejected by Christianity in general. More generally, the article seems to do a poor job of separating what various faiths accept about Peter from what is academically accepted as historically true about Peter.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I get the point. And I'll be more accurate in future. I often stumble over passages that need work, which doesn't necessarily mean that I notice what needs to be done. See if you like it better now: I've changed the sentence again, trying to cater for all factors. With that, I think the introduction is now OK--I can't speak for the rest of the article, as I have only scanned it.Geke (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I think it's an improvement. (Given that it's a religion topic, your edit will likely be either completely ignored or launch a huge edit war involving accusations of bad faith, sock puppets and outrageous histrionics.) Cheers. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thumbs up, but are things really that sensitive/erratic these days? Poor Wikipedia newbies!Geke (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I think a fairly innocuous edit to a religion-related article could set off somebody's "OMG!-they're-attacking-my-core-beliefs" sensor? I saw an edit war ending in a block over "19th" versus "nineteenth" recently. And then there's an article about a soda with recurring efforts to emphasize a distant historical connection to Nazis... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page note
Hi Geke, New talk page threads are generally placed at the bottom of the page, so I moved yours there. I hope this is OK. You can see the thread and my response here. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Calendars
Hi, I have left a message in the article talkpage. ऋतम् (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusion about user (combination and permutations)
Dear Geke, you left me a message saying that I reverted your redirection of the link "Combinations and permutations". However, this was not done by me, the reversion was just to a version that I installed in 2011. As the history entry shows, he reversion was actually done by the user Scope creep. By the way, it's been a long time since I've done much serious contribution to Wikipedia, and I agree that there is a lot to learn/remember in order to do things the right way. Good luck editing, Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, yes, now I see it. Now I have to start dealing with creeps to edit Wikipedia…! Not sure if I’m willing to enter into that :) Thanks for your answer; maybe you know of some sort of tutorial or a series of lessons somewhere, not necessarily on Wikipedia? Or did you learn little by little by trial and error, i.e. the hard way? Instead of those myriad loose help pages, a short structured course – and maybe also a longer version – is all it takes to get more people to contribute, and to contribute in a better way, I believe.--Geke (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: I just noticed the tutorial at the top of your list of useful links. At first glance, it doesn’t go as far as templates, but I’ll give it a try anyway. Thanks again!--Geke (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio problem at Talk:Johnson & Johnson
Hi, Geke, Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I removed the text you cut and pasted from the Cilag site to the J&J talk page. WP's policy on copyright violations extends to talk pages-- see WP:C-P. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Grandma, I’ve studied how you have edited the article – very instructive! I’m just wondering, how did you look for the book info? I didn’t know better than just searching the web and found one copy on Amazon, published in 2006, not 2020.

After some looking around, I also discovered the "cite book" template, and after some more searching, I even found the Help page about it (I was puzzled by the two fields "page" and "pages"). I confess that it’s so overwhelming that I’ll have to leave that for a rainy day… So thank you very much for this! --Geke (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2021 (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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)