User talk:Mevagiss

Air Zimbabwe
Hello. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding, let me tell you that the issue date for the timetable you provided as a source is prior to the date flights to Gatwick were supposed to start, and therefore we are in the same predicament as with your former edit. As per WP:VERIFY, we need to provide sources for the statements that have taken place, and the reference you provided is predicting the future, not confirming a fact has occurred. I'll manage to find sources confirming the commencement of services.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the timetable was revised in November 2013 (so the reference is actually suitable), but inexplicably it is still listed as the August timetable on their website, probably to save the cost of redesigning it. This updated revision is the reference. If you prefer a more explicit reference then perhaps you can find one. Gatwick airport's website confirms the current state of the route but of course this changes every day so might not be the most satisfactory source.--Mevagiss (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Henry Birchenough
We do not generally link major countries. Please see WP:OVERLINKING. "Britain" is a perfectly acceptable term, understood in this context to mean the United Kingdom (whereas Great Britain does not). Use of abbreviations such as "UK" in articles generally looks amateurish and is unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a case for this as in many articles such the above where more than one term is being used without distinguishing. I see now that I could have inserted the link to just United Kingdom instead of the long form of the name as it was officially before 1927. Overlink policy notwithstanding there is a legitimate reason (and a WP policy) to link important features of the article at least once as here. It may appear that the use of UK is unnecessary to you but it is accurate whereas Britain is vaguer (although that is not why I made the edit). I don't agree that using "UK" is amateurish and the United Kingdom article and probably lots of others use it freely. It is in common use in conversation and in official circles and in government announcements. It is in fact the very opposite of pedantic.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not just to me. Links to the United Kingdom have been removed from articles by many other editors. As to UK, yes, it is commonly used. But this is an encyclopaedia! Many expressions are commonly used in speech but shouldn't be finding their way into a serious encyclopaedic work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

accuracy of edit summary
In this edit your editing summary was "formatting whitespace" but in fact you made many changes to article content. Can you explain this discrepancy? Zerotalk 00:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I have quite a few subjects of expertise I usually edit WP purely for use of vocabulary or expression, except when I trim the blank spaces so this possible prompt appears a lot on my browser. I suspect I was distracted by someone and returned later on, if I made some other change. What suggestion would you propose for me to have reported instead?--Mevagiss (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir John Pelly, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Cotton. 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) 09:02, 4 January 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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Editorial interchange
Thanks for your input on the Eshmun article. I don't have a user name for several reasons and some other users use this as an excuse to revert my edits. I thought it was rich that the editor that reverted me called your experience with the Venus article silly and non-deserving (a really stupid term) when it reverted my edits without any discussion twice. Arrogant behaviour is quite common by so many users. Also the use of the guy's user name who was involved in an edit war in a lame attempt to drag him into it. Finally I want to comment on the deliberately misleading information given to justify the other era convention (I have seen this a lot in wiki discussions by the BCE clique) followed by an arrogant and shameless "whatever" when the real story is uncovered. The BC system is sponsoring Christianity blah, blah, blah while the BCE system is secular (YAWN, no it's political correctness). The attitude is often - when I insist on upholding a principle that suits me it's important but when others uphold one that doesn't suit me it is nitpicking. Unlike that false greeting you got let me wish you a genuine happy new year.--82.27.217.102 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes too many egos around here. I particularly like the users who use discussions purely to get their way and then resort to calling the exchange "pointless" or a "waste of time" even though they continue to partake. Have a good one--Mevagiss (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Red-billed quelea page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=717280802 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F717280802%7CRed-billed quelea%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Querrey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Anderson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sam_Querrey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sam_Querrey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)