User talk:Tri-l

Welcome!
Hello, Tri-l, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction 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

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568095846 your edit] to Gustav Koerner 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) 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * {Link GA|de}
 * Thanx, tin can. I have noticed it already by myself. But it is vary useful, what it do. ;-) Tri-l (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Promontory Financial
Hi, I noticed you reverted my updates and changes to Promontory but I don't see my changes as being categorized as WP:VAN. My changes are from the sources, for example it states 383 employees and not circa 400, as you changed it back to. But I'd like to work with you on this since I see you have put a lot of time into the updates. Perhaps we can discuss your objections on Talk:Promontory Financial Group. Didn't mean to startle you with the updates, I use Sandbox to make my changes before inserting. Look forward to working with you. --Monstermike99 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Monstermike99, This must be a misunderstanding on your part. You have reverted my treatments. You have revised the whole article. I did not agree with it. You should carry out your changes warily and, besides, take some consideration on the treatments of other authors. Whole paragraphs of my work were extinguished by you, so as they would be wrong, including in addition for that purpose from me determined ascertained references in a work of several hours. I don't mind basically if other people correct my work or if they have another opinion. If somebody ruins still my whole work, it is not surprising that I defend this work. For the rest, no obligation insists for me on writing a vandalism message. I cherish the wish to cooperate, too. I welcome even opinions which differ from my views, insofar as they can be justified.
 * The number of employees in an enterprise can change every day and every hour. Yesterday there were working 383 people, and nowadays? It is not usual to specify exactly the number of the employees of a company up to the last place, because a daily actualisation would not be possible and also overdone. The approximate number is perfect enough. Tri-l (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That is great news Tri-l and much appreciated, look forward to working with you. What I will do is list my changes on the Talk:Promontory Financial Group, with the sources I included, and then you can respond to my justifications in kind. I will also include others in the category for a baseline of sorts to form some sort of neutrality/comparison.  I'm sure based on your edits that the subject is something you have intimate knowledge of so I'll lean on your expertise. I again apologize you took great offense to my edits but I'm not quite sure what "no obligation insists for me on writing a vandalism message" means, but I know how Wiki defines it on this page WP:VAN. As I stated earlier, my changes were not put together in "several hours", I used the Sandbox when doing my updates and included them when completed.  I fancy myself as a great researcher but you're giving me too much credit :) But have a great weekend, I'll continue the discussion there and again looking forward to it. --Monstermike99 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Braith-Mali-Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans (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) 08:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belleville, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicentennial. 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) 09:29, 6 September 2014 (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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"MCB UP Ltd" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MCB UP Ltd. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BCE
Hi Tri-I! I saw you reverted my edit on Jericho, and was wondering the rationale. The established style of the article was actually BC/AD, until it was unilaterally changed by user "Tristan von Troy" about two years ago. This was in violation of WP:BCE, which says "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." Korossyl (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I respect your religious beliefs, of course. However, we must bear in mind that many people do not share your faith. The abbreviation AD stands for Anno Domini, translated as in the year of the Lord. These styles were quite common in older scientific literature and therefore are still mostly accepted today. Wikipedia articles are aimed at all people, regardless of their beliefs. To ensure the neutrality of these lemmas, authors should therefore use the more objective term Common Era. If this terminology bothers you, you can register it for yourself as Christian Era. I guess that is a good compromise.


 * It is remarkable how much effort you have made to clarify this matter through communicative means. I would like to thank you for that.
 * As authors, we should not convey beliefs in Wikipedia. That is why I have come to the conclusion to only use BCE and CE in historical descriptions. - Tri@l (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And I agree it would be nice if WP had a specific stance on this -- either AD/BC [i]or[/i] BCE/CE. But the guidelines DO state that either IS acceptable -- and that it's not to be changed without consensus. That's why I was concerned to find that it HAD been changed, unilaterally, by that user about two years ago. Korossyl (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You may not like my view on this, but I generally opt for the use of BCE/CE for historical time indications, because this comes closer to a neutral evaluation of such indications. The exact determination of the turning point of time has, as we know today, been chosen somewhat arbitrarily and in no way refers to the birth of a particular person. In the evaluation of human history, we who are born later should adopt a standpoint as neutral as possible in order to ensure the correct evaluation of every single epoch.
 * «All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.»
 * In antiquity, years were often counted according to the reign of a ruler. Christians believed in the (heavenly) reign of the anointed one, their Lord. The delivery of this person was computed AFAIR in the sixth century by a Greek monk from the holy scriptures of the Christians, whereby this man, due to inadequate education made mistakes. - Tri@l (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I do understand your reasoning, and we can certainly agree to disagree. But WP:ERA is pretty clear, isn't it? And that's in spite of NPOV; AD/BC are, by virtue of that policy, considered by Wikipedia to be as neutral as BCE/CE -- whether you or I agree or not. Thoughts? Korossyl (talk) 23:14, 4 June 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) 01:09, 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)