User talk:Wykypydya

Hello! How's my editing? Please drop me a line. --Wykypydya

contribution to Spark Notes
Note of caution: tagging an edit as possible OR is not an acceptable way to edit/contribute to wikipedia; especially when said edit is blatant OR and admitted POV. By all means continue to be Be Bold. Good luck.--ZayZayEM 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help finding right template
Helpme inquiry: What kind of template (i.e. cleanup template) should one use on Wikipedia for a plot summary that needs to be explained better?


 * Question, why do we need a plot summary? Why wouldn’t we simply do what we are meant to do? Lovelight 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF, what are you talking about? Is that some kind of abstract question or something?  I meant the plot of a movie: What kind of template message would you put on an article describing a movie's plot that does a poor job?


 * I'm sorry, for some reason your user page disturbs me. Lovelight 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you must be confused or something, because first you go off on a tangent about "doing what we are meant to do" and then you complain about my user page. (But just to play Devil's Advocate, I find the fake scenario on my user page quite amusing.  Don't you?) --Wykypydya 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is Devil's Advocate? You are free to remove whatever disturbs you. It's just an opinion. Lovelight 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opinions are welcome. To play Devil's Advocate is to hypothetically assume the argument of the other side and make a point about it. --Wykypydya 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand what got you so upset, since I've encountered a number of these "devil advocates" before, thank you. Lovelight 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of opinions, I see you are very devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't be too surprised if you're right.  Bush has conspiracy written all over him.  I don't know about the 9/11 conspiracies, but his corrupt oil and anti-environmentalist actions are really conspiracies.
 * Fact is, the conspiracy is based on conspiracy, that is, you label decent folks who are puzzled by unanswered questions [emphasis added] with a particular term, and then you make sure that it is as derogatory as possible… It's very desperate approach, since we've passed that event horizon, and you cannot go around and insult the whole wide world. I honestly wonder who will be the first to recognize the libel in label and sue for damage done… these days; one could easily sue a lot of folks. There, that is my only opinion on conspiracy theories… Well, since we are sharing perspectives, let me summarize. I'm not really interested in conspiracy or truthseeking… just facts. That said, I'm glad to know you. Lovelight 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting anyone. Sorry you took it that way. --Wykypydya 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, let me assure you, i haven't taken that as insult, not at all, honestly… we are chitchatting and sharing opinions, right? :) Lovelight 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please try Expand-section. -- Selket Talk 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a good replacement for sectstub. For the movie plot for now, I am using the confusing template and the rewrite template. --Wykypydya 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Username
Hello, Wykypydya. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive (). You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow... I didn't know my username was so potent to spark such a controversial discussion. (How come no message was put here while it was going on?  I would probably have commented...)  It is such a coincidence that a rule about that was made right after.  Does this mean that if I created the username afterward, it would have been blocked?
 * Basically, I sat for a long time thinking about what kind of username would be interesting, but most things were either taken or I had to put trailing numbers. I thought that something resembling the name "Wikipedia" but with different letters for the vowels, and all uniform, would be unique yet unintrusive.  As for the comment about masquerading as a misleading identity or authority, I had no intention of that... The statement on my user page about being the "definitive" WP user is just a joke.  I'll take it out if there's any objection to it.  Everything else on the user page is just me making a creative slate out of my user page.
 * Anyway, I'd rather think that the username doesn't directly violate policy than justify it by saying that the rule was made afterwards. That being said, I hope a different result wouldn't have happened if I had made the username after the rule... but that's all academic anyway.
 * As I have no intention of misleading anyone, I'll do my best to correct anyone who is misled. If the fact that the username appears to be archetypal becomes too much of a problem, and/or I can think of something else unique yet nonintrusive, I'll consider changing it.
 * Thanks for understanding. --Wykypydya 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct in that you should have been notified of the discussion, it appears to have been an oversight. The discussion took place [#Wykypydya_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 here]. In answer to your question, if you had made your username after the rule it may have been disallowed depending on people's opinions. The discussion about your name very quickly, and almost unanimously, decided your name was fine. It was not really a controversial name. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism subpages
Please note, your userspace /vandalism subpages have been deleted following a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wykypydya/Vandalism. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, chum! >:-(  Those pages weren't bothering or infringing on anyone, were isolated in userspace, and were free for people to contribute to.  You ascetic people are so intolerant of the most benign things!  It wasn't vandalism of the encyclopedia itself; it was voluntary vandalism of my own userspace.  It was the utilization of Wikipedia's free environment without adulterating real articles.  Either way, again I wasn't notified when the debate was brought up, which isn't a very big deal other than that I might have considered commenting, unless that's actually the policy for debates about specific users.
 * I like my vandalism, and you people just take it away, take it away, take it away...
 * My vandalism lies over the ocean, my vandalism lies over the sea, my vandalism lies over the ocean, oh bring back my vandalism to me... --Wykypydya 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they are utilising WP:NOT--ZayZayEM 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps, in one interpretation, in some abstract way. --Wykypydya 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, wait a minute! On the debate they said what I was doing was similar to WP:BJAODN (bad jokes and other deleted nonsense)!  If Wikipedia can have a bad jokes/nonsense page as a Wikipedia meta-article, then why can't I have a personal userspace tree for the same genre of content? --Wykypydya 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a note, a lot of people have illegal subpages, but it is customary to not delete other people's pages, because it kind of creates a bitterness I think, and as you may well already know. If you've got any secret subpages, you can have them privately deleted for fear of getting in trouble later on (and which may haunt you during an RfA). [' Mac Δαvιs '] ❖ 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi :) Uh, let's start over. I didn't like how we started, and I didn't like how I had about three weeks of work to do. I, and somebody else are going to be coaching you and User:Deep_Impact, since although I've been around and seen a lot, I haven't "coached" before. [' Mac Δαvιs '] ❖ 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay --Wykypydya 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How many more edits/time do you think I need before I'm eligible for adminship? --Wykypydya 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: A retort from the user you just reverted
"'Unsourced statements'? WTF? I put the 'citation needed' template in there." That's EXACTLY my point. It is UNCITED. "Uncited" means it needs a citation. As for lack of clarity, if you can't see that I doubt that I could convince you. Let's just say that the thoughts in your head aren't coming across in your words. I suggest that you get help writing, then if it makes sense I'll leave it if it's relevant and cited. Ward3001 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a "citation needed" tag is not for the original contributor to insert in order to prevent deletion. It is inserted by another editor after an unsourced statement; if no source is added as a result, the statement is subject to deletion. Information in Wikipedia should be verifiable, meaning that the original contributor should cite source(s). Some editors fail to do this, which is why the cn tag is needed. You, as the original contributor of the information, should cite a source, instead of placing a cn tag and expecting someone else to cite the source. As for lack of clarity, regardless of the accuracy of the quotes, the text that introduces the quotes makes little sense. That's where you need help writing. I would offer to help you myself, except I have no idea what you're trying to say. Additionally, since the information you are adding is trivia, you need to read WP:HTRIV regarding integration of the trivia into the main article. I have my doubts that this can be done logically, but if you can I encourage you to do so. Ward3001 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Please read Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy regarding edit summaries. I have recently edited Private company limited by shares and your comment regarding the correction of grammar you made, whilst accurate, could be construed as offensive. Matt Adore 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual stereotyping
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sexual stereotyping, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sexual stereotyping fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''Topic already addressed, more thoroughly, accurately, and with citations, in LGBT stereotypes. The stereotyping addressed here is not really "sexual" but sexual orientation-based, which is already covered.''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sexual stereotyping, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sexual stereotyping itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from userpage
The following is a copy of someone's comment and follow-up that was placed in the vandalism section of my userpage.

Edit Summary
Please read Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy regarding edit summaries. I have recently edited Private company limited by shares and your comment regarding the correction of grammar you made, whilst accurate, could be construed as offensive. Matt Adore 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops... I'll try to avoid this in the future. However, I regret to inform you that you have posted your comment in the vandalism section of my userpage, so technically this comment is vandalism and may be construed as nonsense.  As a courtesy I'll copy this over to my user talk page.  Thanx 4 the comment, though. --Wykypydya 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Thanks for your edits to child sexual abuse. As it is a highly contested page, we are trying to limit any additions to fully cited, scientific sources. Adding a statement and then tagging it "citation needed" yourself, or adding a section and then tagging it a stub yourself is not a good idea in this case. A reference to a fictional television show is particularly unhelpful. Also, the location of your edit was not well chosen. Please join us on the Talk:child sexual abuse where a lot of this kind of work is being done prior to inserting it on the page. Thanks very much. -Jmh123 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse reports
If a user adds an IP report to Abuse reports, should the user then edit the accused user's talk page to inform them that they have reported them, or will an automated bot do it, or should they not be explicitly informed? (I have had several experiences in which administrative deliberations took place about my username and I wasn't informed (though I should have been) until they were concluded.) --Wykypydya 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Abuse reports doesn't really say what to do so it probably doesn't matter. Let the volunteers at Abuse reports decide how to handle the problem I guess?  If this answer isn't satisfactory, let me know so I can go look deeper.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

variance
I have reverted your edit to variance for reasons discussed at talk:variance. Michael Hardy 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, S.O.L.A.R. System, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Nen yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does this meet the criteria for speedy deletion? You're wrong!  >:-(  It's a valid stub article about a microcosmical topic!  Geez -- I've been trying to make an article on this topic for years and SOME brat always takes it away.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wykypydya (talk • contribs).

WTF? Wikipedia, the free POKEMON encyclopedia?!
Previous "help" statement:

We need a WP technician! Someone has hacked the entire Wikipedia site (or main template) so that all articles now have as a header under the title: "From Wikipedia, the free Pokemon encyclopedia"! This is interesting yet very bizarre!

It looks like it's been fixed. --Wykypydya (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Obsidian
Hiya, I did some cleanup on the lead at Obsidian (video game). FYI, it's totally fine to remove unsourced information, but strikeouts should probably be avoided. See also Verifiability. Cheers, --Elonka 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you see, I know for a fact that that guidebook didn't come with the game. We waited for f***ing two years for it to come in the mail!

Steward candidateship
Hi, Wykypydya. Please remember that you must identify to the foundation prior to the start of the poll, which means until today midnight (UTC). Additionally you have to have a global account, so please link your accounts - at least on Meta and enwiki - together. According to the rules you would otherwise be disqualified. Best regards, --Thogo (Talk) Some thoughts about enwiki 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, crap -- I got this and realized too late. I should have been on the ball with it.  Anyway, I appreciate your giving me this reminder.

Random comment from someone
I have copied the following incorrectly-placed comment that was written on my userpage from a non-vandalism section, to here. --Wykypydya (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whos is jimbo and why am I allowed to edit even though im not logged in? and i can save it, but can anyone else see it or is it temporarily changed only in my browser.


 * ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.199.125.10 (talk • contribs) )


 * My answer: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! You don't have to be logged in to edit Wikipedia, but the only difference is that you will be publicly identified by your Internet Protocol (IP) address... so that we can all see what region you're from and hack you.  Just kidding about the "hacking" part.  ;)  Proper editing and reversal of vandalism gets regularly enforced by the user and admin communities. --Wykypydya (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse
I undid your edit to this page, because there are 68 other links which redirect to the page, and listing all of them would be impossible. In general, it is best to list only those redirects which have other meanings as well; "secks" really isn't something people would type when searching for leetspeak. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 09:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Pingas (internet meme)
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Taelus (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your brain resembles the brain of a turkey
Now that's a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.125.65 (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you! --Wykypydya (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

hi
can i use use/link your username on my userspace in order to say i agree with you on the subject of wikipedia vandalism?, and whats up with autosign, i hate that.
 * I guess so, although I was thinking of possibly changing or altering that viewpoint and/or the text at some point. --Wykypydya (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wykypydya's vandalism for my comment to that, as it does not fit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonez1113 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What?? --Wykypydya (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

i mean it is vandalism and i do not mean to burden you with moving it.--Sonez1113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

Hey uh, feel free to clean this to save space. --17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonez1113 (talk • contribs)

Please delete this text here in this header. --Sonez1113 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lake-tuz-turkey-macroscopic-in-turkey-google-earth.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lake-tuz-turkey-macroscopic-in-turkey-google-earth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I'm using the image!
 * File:Lake-tuz-turkey-macroscopic-in-turkey-google-earth.jpg

Speedy deletion nomination of RUU
A tag has been placed on RUU requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cindamuse (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lake-tuz-turkey-in-the-middle-of-turkey-google-earth.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lake-tuz-turkey-in-the-middle-of-turkey-google-earth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
In a recent edit to the page List of Mr. Bean episodes, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PINGAS


Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as PINGAS, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

List of supporting characters on South Park
Hi. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept unsourced material or original research, such as this edit of yours to List of supporting characters on South Park. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Material lacking such sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished syntheses of previously published material, is not permitted. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See also for Charlie's Angels
Per WP:SEEALSO, can you please provide a brief annotation, since the link's relevance is not immediately apparent? Thanks, and best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

what?
What is this fake scenario you speak of? (the fake scenario on my user page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonez1113 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Replied on User talk:Sonez1113) --Wykypydya (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I must have just thought I saw that. Also I am aware I can recover it from the edit summary, I just didn't feel like recovering the words of a personal attack creator who acts without evidence, I mean jeez, he didn't even check my contributions to see that I have never have vandalised any article.--Sonez1113 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bit of Help?
Hello Wykypydya, are you aware of how one can change their signature? I've just been wondering about that.--Sonez1113 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try Special:Preferences. --Wykypydya (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Sonez1113 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice


Sonez1113 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Huh, interesting! Thanks.  --Wykypydya (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!

Response to deleted question here
I don't know, it looks like they're leaving userpages alone and deleting vandalism subpages. But they left my "idiotic reversal subpages" up. --Wykypydya (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"a historic" vs "an historic"
In response to your edit summary here, I wanted to point out that both are technically acceptable. – anna  01:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, no it is not! As that page even says, these words are not modernly pronounced that way, so it should only be left in quoted text or titles.  Check out A_and_an. --Wykypydya (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read that section more carefully. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary considers both "a" and "an" acceptable: "Before unstressed or weakly stressed syllables with initial h both a and an are used in writing ." You may not prefer it -- I don't either -- but it's not incorrect. –  anna  01:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just plain stupid and looks and sounds terrible. I've just created a new "crusade" on my userpage to remove instances of "an historic" where people can sign up their usernames.  Want to join? --Wykypydya (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR, you should avoid making large-scale changes to English style in articles based on personal taste ("plain stupid", "sounds terrible"). Both 'a historic' and 'an historic' are used today in educated writing; neither is incorrect. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not correct and it never will be correct. --Wykypydya (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mawson's Huts is written in Australian English. Australian English uses an historic; a historic is never used because in Australian English the h is weakly stressed and non-rhotic. We say it that way, we spell it that way, and it should stay that way. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * It's a modern vs older issue. I was taught "an before h" at school, but many people nowadays use "a before h". Think of it as similar to how "either" and "neither" can be pronounced. Both ways are correct. It's not an issue to ge wikistressed over. Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several different reasons people use "an historic". For some, like Crusoe8181, it's an issue of a silent h. For others, it's the lack of stress on the first syllable. For still others, it's associated with a certain register and is chosen intentionally to invoke that register. The corpus of contemporary American English  shows that "an historic"  is alive and well in American English. Unilateral claims like "It's not correct and it never will be correct." only demonstrate an ignorance of the matter. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wykypydya, good on you for changing "an historic" to "a historic." The Chicago Manual of Style specifically addresses this & says "a historic" is the correct usage. Good luck on your crusade. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Query
Please explain this. Materialscientist (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And this and this amongst others. Why are you riding roughshod over the advice that you have been given re a/an historic? ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 10:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wykypydya....
Another user has expressed a concern about your userpage, particularly the bits that appear to be Jimbo Wales' signature. We have a policy about that: signature forgery. I wonder if you'd see your way clear to remove those? Also, please remember to stay civil in your edit summaries. I'm a little concerned about the ones I saw today. - Philippe 05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello from Anna
I like the fact that you have a big brain and a ton of energy. I think you want to help. After all, you're spending your valuable time changing the "an" to help Wikipedia, right?

But I worry about your future here. You are starting to draw heat, my friend. I see you've been around since 2007. You certainly know that this is a collaborative project. Statements like "...Who the hell says "an historic"?..." and "...People who write "an" before a non-silent "h" are stupid..." is not a good plan. Nor is the Jimbo forgery on your user page. Nor is the adversarial stance. Try to get along and cooperate with other editors instead of editing with such a confrontational style. That would be good all around.

Also, I gather you've seen this sort of thing before and it usually goes one of two ways: You tone it down and become a respected, constructive editor who helps the project. You end up in fights that draw a lot of keystrokes off the construction of the project, and end up blocked.

Wikipedia could really use your obvious energy and intelligence. Please use your powers for good instead of......hmmmmm.......ummmm....I don't know. I can't think of the word. Anyway, you get my point. If there's anything you need, just drop me a line. Happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to editing concerns
Hmm... I didn't know that my editing was causing conflicts. Firstly, even if a bot can't be made to change "an" to "a", and assuming "an" is just as acceptable as "a", is it legitimate for users to edit it manually to improve style as long as the article stays valid? Or is it considered a poor practice to edit the article if some feel that there is nothing wrong with the style being used?

I don't mean anything bad by the edit summaries.

Also, the "Jimbo Wales" thing is just a joke; most of it is inside the "vandalism" section on the userpage. It is sort-of an inside joke: In the past I've seen people put the line "Can I really edit here?" and Jimbo Wales's signature. I don't know how often this is still practiced. So I decided to mock this practice over the years by putting it in the limelight and repeating it as an obvious joke in a non-serious section of the userpage. For example, I would not forge anyone's signature in this talk page. Where it is in a serious section of my userpage, it is identified as a quote. In some cases I use it in a fake dialog where the fake "Jimbo Wales" keeps repeating the line and I respond to it -- it's not meant to be a "forgery". So you can edit the "vandalism" section of the userpage if you like to remove it, or let me know if doing that in the first place is considered a violation.

Let me know if I need to do anything differently or if anything I'm doing is a violation of the rules. --Wykypydya (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't really about a violation of rules. It's about a rogueish departure from the way the community does things. It's disruptive and causes hard feelings. "...do anything differently..." you say? Sure, just do things how the community does. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But will it be acceptable if I continue changing "an historic" to "a historic" (Will it cause an edit war?) and re-instantiating the "Can I really edit here"/Jimbo Wales joke? --Wykypydya (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Change "an to a" here and there and see who barks. If nobody cares, do more. If editors object, then you must take it to talk and get consensus. If the whole thing drains your energy and the project's resources, drop it. If it really, really means the world to you, fight on for consensus. No consensus in the end? Tough noogies. Move on.


 * You are here to help the project, so weigh it out:


 * A: The encyclopedia remains with many occurrences of "an historic". No energy expended.
 * B: The encyclopedia has all occurrences of "a historic". The encyclopedia is missing some development it otherwise would have had if editors had spent their time working on articles instead of arguing over the "a historic" matter on talk pages.


 * Jimbo jokes are fine. Look at my user page. He's drinking vodka and his feet are cheese. It was the forged signature that users didn't like.


 * Happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Undo
I am going to undo your edits today to change "an historic" to "a historic". This is a WP:ENGVAR issue; the style established in each article should be left as is. Several people have indicated this on the bot request page. So please desist from making this sort of change en masse in the future. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you do that? Are you asserting that "a historic" is invalid?  There is no reason to change it back.  I have discussed above that it would be OK to change "an historic" to "a historic" even though some people accept either way.  --Wykypydya (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that people accept either way means that the way that is already used should be maintained. See WP:ENGVAR (especially WP:RETAIN) and WP:STABILITY. The general rule is, "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.". In this case, that means that if the article was established using 'an historic' then this should be maintained, and the same for 'a historic'. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Carl. People are barking. "a" and "an" are both acceptable. The world doesn't have a preference. You do. Wikipedia belongs to the world. Consensus is forming right here that you should leave them as is. You are drawing keystrokes off the mainspace and being disruptive. Objectively, you must see that this is hurting the project more than "an --> a" might be helping. I respectfully suggest that you abandon the crusade. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Drawing keystrokes, eh? That's a funny perspective.  All right, I guess my way has lost.  No problem though, compromise is often needed in WP.  --Wykypydya (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I must disagree about the application of WP:ENGVAR to this case. "An historic" isn't prescribed by any "major national variety" of English.  It's clearly not British English: the OED insists on "a historic".  Nor is it the default for American English: the Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook both call for "a historic"; Merriam-Webster allows both, but places "a historic" first, presumably as the preferred form.


 * A count of Google hits indicates that on pages that use one but not both variants, "a historic" is used on 79%. On pages that use one but not both variants together with "color" (used as an indicator of American English, vs. "colour" for British English), the frequency of "a historic" is 75%.  Ammodramus (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad argument for "a historic". Well, I guess consensus is not forming right here that you should leave them as is. If you feel strongly, change them. I suggest adding a boffo edit summary to prevent reverts. Maybe toss OED and the google fact in there. Good luck on the campaign. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for offering some credence on this, I suspected that it would be possible to support these changes. What do "boffo" and "OED" mean?  Hopefully there is a way to go about these edits without an edit war.  --Wykypydya (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. (Boffo means really solid, and OED means Oxford English Dictionary.) What I mean is, instead of an edit summary that says "Hey idiots, 'a historic' is best", which will annoy people, try an edit summary that looks something like this: ("an --> a" per Google (79% favouring "a"), Oxford English Dictionary, and numerous other sources.) Then editors will need to revert with an argument that supersedes that. My guess is that most will accept your change. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * After inserting my first comment, I read some of the earlier sections of this page, and encountered User:Crusoe8181's comment that "an historic" is standard Australian English. If this is so, I blush for my ignorance and apologize to my antipodean brethren, and I'd endorse the phrase's use in articles closely connected to Australia.  However, when I searched the Sydney Morning Herald website for ("a historic" OR "an historic"), the first ten hits came up 70% "a" and 30% "an".   Ammodramus (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Denied AWB request
I have denied your AWB request due to concerns about your proposal to use it for a controversial change ("an h..." --> "a h..."). Since you meet the minimum edit count for AWB, I would not object to your re-applying, provided you agreed not to use it for controversial changes, including the one you'd proposed, per WP:AWB. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Natoma (opera)
I noticed you recently moved Natoma to Natoma (opera). I realize this move was necessary for disambiguation purposes and have no problem with the move itself. However, the Natoma (opera) article is now an orphan because you did not change the incoming links when you changed the title. Please take the time to fix the articles which should go to the page on the opera and not the dab page. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there an efficient or automated way to do this? I have seen many links on WP that go to a disambiguation page when they should go to a specific article, presumably because a page was replaced by a disambiguation page and the links weren't updated. --Wykypydya (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Lentini
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Alberto Lentini. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alberto Lentini


The article Alberto Lentini has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what reliable sources there are for this yet! I think that the article is valid, but isn't there a way to leave it up so that someone can provide a source at some point?

Trustee
Hello. Since you moved the article that used to be at Trustee and converted that title to a disambiguation page, please remember to WP:FIXDABLINKS; there are nearly 1,000 other Wikipedia articles that Special:Whatlinkshere/Trustee contain links to Trustee, all of which now need to be reviewed and retargeted to the correct destination. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back, since this seems to be a substantial change made without discussion. I believe the legal sense is the primary topic (both Board of trustees and Trustee system are references to the legal meaning), but I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Trustee if you wish to present evidence that the legal sense is not the primary topic. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A Scause for Applause
Please do not add unsourced synthesis or speculation to articles, as you did with this edit to A Scause for Applause. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT and and the notice at the top of the Sourth Park episode talk pages, editors cannot add material based on their personal belief or speculation. Secondary sources are needed for material that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative. Adding material based solely on an editor's viewing of a primary source, when that material is not explicitly stated in that primary source, is called synthesis, which is not permitted. Similar, speculation is prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Trusty system
Since you changed the redirect that used to be at Trusty system to point to the disambiguation for Trustee, there are several pages with links that have yet to be updated. Shawn Is Here : Now in colors 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monitor (synchronization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One-to-many (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) 12:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monitor (synchronization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomicity (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) 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Evidence (law)
 * added a link pointing to Civil law


 * Tampering with evidence
 * added a link pointing to Civil law

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimoh Adams listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jimoh Adams. Since you had some involvement with the Jimoh Adams redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bold (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bold (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Bold (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Equation requested
Template:Equation requested has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Hygrargyrum" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hygrargyrum. Since you had some involvement with the Hygrargyrum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Robot
Robot 2601:602:C700:2EB0:B5B5:6DC3:93C2:8163 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Medical Information Bureau 2017 No-Record Letter With Redactions.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Medical Information Bureau 2017 No-Record Letter With Redactions.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)