User talk:BX9438Q/2011
If you don't mind, at Wikipedia we talk about unsourced or POV statements, after we label them properly and wait for other people to react. We don't just remove them on the spot as if they were obvious rubbish. We also enter edit summaries, especially when we delete chunks of text from an article. — AdiJapan 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to undue. It was all pretty minor passive voice stuff about things being "perceived as," however. Such things are obviously problematic and very difficult to source. Large portions of the article are actually unsourced, which is understandable, particularly in a chart-heavy entry about foreign grammar, but I only removed things that proved particularly difficult to cite.Flyte35 (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Resolution: Some edits removed.
I'm trying to improve the article about Maximilian of Mexico but unfortunately, the lack of good quality photographs prevents me from beginning it. Do you have books with photos of Maximilian with good quality? --Lecen (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I generally try to stay away from photos now because I'm a little unclear on how permissions work. So I'm not really the best user to go to for help. Note that there are already 17 pictures affiliated with the article, however. I don't really think more would improve the article much.Flyte35 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw your removal of the obsolescence of tanks comment. I was the one who added the tag but I think it would be appropriate to at least say something more neutral like "Experts are conflicted about the usefulness of tanks in modern asymmetric warfare". Marcus Qwertyus 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I don't think mentioning that some people think tanks are obsolete in contemporary warfare is really appropriate in the introduction, though it's certainly good to bring that up at some point in the article. I think including a statement like that, particularity if you can source "experts are conflicted," would be valuable.Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Resolution: Edit retained.
There is a need for some sort of date at NUS School of Computing. "Current" is a vague, temporally (as opposed to "temporarily") term and is discouraged. Using "As of ..." or something like that would work. In fact, I think there is a template by that name. Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly being more specific would be nice. "As of" would be an improvement. But "current" is a not vague. It means now. "For many years" is vague. But the precise date that the current administrator took over, etc. is not necessary. Cluttering the article up with "when" tags when like that is not an improvement.Flyte35 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I don't think that tags are clutter if they are addressing a problem. The project is not meant to "look pretty" but rather to be accurate. "Current" only means "now" at the time it is written, which is why it is deprecated. Too many articles have the wrong name attached to a position etc precisely because it becomes set in stone and there is no context. As of, or a similar formulaic structure, is a necessity, I think. Anyway, I'll check the MOS and let you know. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that was quick! WP:DATED and Wikipedia:As_of explain it fairly well. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, a date would be an improvement. The tagging, however, seems unnecessary to me since it's a relatively minor problem.Flyte35 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Resolution: Tags removed. Flyte35 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, a date would be an improvement. The tagging, however, seems unnecessary to me since it's a relatively minor problem.Flyte35 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that was quick! WP:DATED and Wikipedia:As_of explain it fairly well. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I don't think that tags are clutter if they are addressing a problem. The project is not meant to "look pretty" but rather to be accurate. "Current" only means "now" at the time it is written, which is why it is deprecated. Too many articles have the wrong name attached to a position etc precisely because it becomes set in stone and there is no context. As of, or a similar formulaic structure, is a necessity, I think. Anyway, I'll check the MOS and let you know. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
License tagging for File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Correct tag is something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-user. Not really sure how to put this in correctly, however.Flyte35 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
François Blanc
[edit]I may have just repeated the fix you did at Princess Marie Bonaparte ; if so, my apologies, I'm just trying to be sure it's correctly linked. - Nunh-huh 06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)