User talk:Trystan/Archive 2

Comment request
Hi! I was wondering if you could possibly comment on this discussion? Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LGBT parenting article
Hello, can you please visit the LGBT parenting article and respond to my comments there? I would like to dialog about this. Hope to hear from you soon.24.92.249.215 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The MoS on animate pronouns: Say or Nay?
I'm told that not all of my pings went through, so this is to inform you that your name has been cited on a list of Wikieditors who hold the opinion that the MoS should not explicitly state that animate pronouns are standard for fictional characters. If this is not correct, please feel free to remove or alter the entry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

DAB
Despite having been critical of the wording of the RfC, I thought I should state explicitly that I appreciate the attempt to resolve the matter RfC-wise. My issue with it had to do with the RfC being unbalanced toward the removal side, because the opposition's claims that material was inserted without discussion and consensus were taken seriously when they are clearly proven to be false. I know that the effort meant well. It just might better have been a discussion first on what the RfC should ask. People lately have not been doing this much, but we need to go back to that habit, which was very common several years ago – draft the RfC, get everyone to agree the question is the right one to ask as it worded acceptably, then run with it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)
I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, only 3 editors including myself have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marc Isambard Brunel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Marc_Isambard_Brunel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Marc_Isambard_Brunel?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) 09:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your recent revision of mine
After reading the article Prophecy of the Popes. I added a beginning paragraph that summarized the below text. I did this because I felt it was needed to clarify the timeline that was presented in the text below. You undid the edit and commented "The alleged pre-publication timeline is widely doubted and should not be presented as fact."

Clearly you do not have a clue to what you are doing. All I did was take the text that was below and summarize it into a simple paragraph. The text below the paragraph I added is the original text which goes in depth and restates everything that I added in the top paragraph. I never presented the pre-publication as fact. I simply stated it in a simplified manner. Any reader would conclude what is said in the text below the paragraph I wrote.

Whether the pre-publication is doubted or accepted by historians means nothing in my edit. The timeline produced for the prophecy was not adequately cited and confusing. I decided to fix the latter of the two problems. Please note, that if you are going to undo my edit, read my edit summary and look at the text that I left and the reworded text I added at the top. Or better yet, just undo the revision and do not give a reason. You didn't do either because you stated that I was presenting the pre-publication as fact. I have no idea how you came to that point, but you are horribly wrong. I am trying to make an article easier to read for the common reader. Please do not edit articles if you are not going to give a concerted effort to actually analyze and work to make Wikipedia articles better.SneaselxLv94 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I have responded at Talk:Prophecy of the Popes.--Trystan (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS Change
Regarding this, why would you add more to a contrasting example than what is relevant? It might confuse someone that there were multiple things different between the two examples. The tense is the point. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)