User talk:Sol Pacificus

Welcome!
Hello, Sol Pacificus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Fath-Ali Shah Qajar. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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. Thanks!

Please also note that the lack of an edit summary is a frequent symptom of vandalism. While there is no sugestion of such on your part, edits are frequently reverted as vandalism based on the missing edit summary alone. I B Wright (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, out of curiosity, was this an automated message, a part of common procedure, or is it in reference to edits I have made without filling out the edit summary? Looking at my contributions, this would be minor corrections to typographical errors, so I suppose my question can better be rephrased as, is it mandatory then that all edits have the summary filled out even if they involved only fixes to a misspelling of a one word, misplacement of punctuation, and the like where the reasoning for the edit would be obvious? Sol Pacificus (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Homophobia reference in lede
After taking a good look at that lede I decided to add a ref after all as you requested, however it is not necessary to add citations to the lede if they are sourced in the main article. Tagging it as you did makes it look like an unfounded piece of editorial, when it is in fact a legitimate part of the article's summary. The reason I added a ref for you is because the rest of the lede is overlinked, making it look out of place, so I understand your position. In future please check the body of the article before tagging the lede with "citation needed", "dubious" or anything like that. It's common practice to leave citations out of the summary. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was actually aware of that policy and had even considered taking a closer look at the body to double-check, but I decided against it for whatever reason that I don't remember—most likely that I was in a rush and also felt a bit weary. I think I also thought that either way, the sentence, which in hindsight seems more opinionated than factual (though I'm aware it is not technically so as it's only describing what sources say), stood out awkwardly in the introduction without any citation and as a standalone sentence at the end. At a glance, a reader might think some random anon had added that in as his own personal opinion and tried to disguise it as the thoughts of some vague source. Indeed, that's what I immediately assumed at a glance. I think if we don't want to cite it because it's cited in the body, it should at least be expanded a little to merge it more naturally into the introduction so it doesn't seem like someone's random addition. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sikkim
Pl do not revert changes without discussing the same first. An old image has been changed with a better quality picture of the Temi tea Garden. - Subhrajyoti07  talk 02:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my hastiness, but the principal reason why I reverted the edit is because of the glaring error at the top where the word "mountain" and now "cherry mountain" is written for no explainable reason. The words just sit there non-sensically. This is disruptive to the page, and I assumed that it was vandalism. I had not noticed that the edit was accompanied by a change in an image as well until after I reverted it, but because I was in a hurry, I really didn't wish to spend another second checking over it. My main concern was that the disruptive edit at the top had to be dealt with promptly. To be honest, I'm quite perplexed that, after undoing my edit, you repeated that mistake. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Its Cherry Resort. The building inside the Temi tea garden is a resort owned by the Govt. of Sikkim as is the garden. They are promoting tea tourism. I have removed the reference of the Cherry resort from the image description. Trust that addresses the issue. - Subhrajyoti07  talk 03:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Look at the very, very top of the page here. There is the word "cherrymountain" floating at the very, very top above even the first sentence of the article. That was the only issue. I don't understand why that was there, and I assume it was an oversight. Sol Pacificus (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

True, now I see it. Yes mountain or cherry mountain either of them made no sense and I have no idea how it creeped in my edit. However in the latest edit the same line has been deleted and not reflecting anymore. Thanks. - Subhrajyoti07  talk 09:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

b 同 p

 * 巴 : [[File:Zh-bā.ogg]]
 * bas : [[File:LL-Q150 (fra)-DSwissK-bas.wav]]

你好, 其實voiced [b]同unaspirated [p]真係有分別. voiced [b]要有個« 唔 »字細細聲, 法文嘅« bas »字讀« 唔巴 », 因為voiced. 而家你聽到分別未? Joe Pig (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2021 (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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)