User talk:HoundsOfSpring

Thanks for the copy edit on UFC. --Nate 14 81 11:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit tag happy??

I've seen your edits to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración and frankly I think you've gone a bit overboard with the tagging here. The clincher is the one where you tag the WOrld X-Cupp with "Which" in the sentence right after the X-Cup has been mentioned. Gee maybe it's the ONLY ONE mentioned on the page? I think you're a bit overzealous in your tagging. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit"

Please say more than "edit" or "copyedit" in your edit summaries. State what you are really doing like "adding information on [something]".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Tokusatsu

Almost all of the tags you have added to this article are either unnecessary or covered by supporting text. For example, you are placing {{whom}} next to the word "dubbed" when it refers to the filmmaking technique. Other instances I have fixed the issues that you put the tags there in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these tags are irrelevant. Do not add "whom" for dubbed when it refers to dubbing over lines and not being named designated as. If you do not understand the context of the sentences do not add tags that mean that the information is not supported. Also, changes like "...are considered by the Japanese..." to "...the Japanese even regard..." completely changes the meaning of that sentence.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this on a bunch of articles. You do realize that if you read the whole sentence, these {{whom}}, {{fact}}, {{which}}, {{when}} tags are supported? This "whom" tag isn't even part of the prose of the article. It's part of a hidden comment that says that people shouldn't change the numbers. And also do you realize that when you edit references you break them by putting several extra carriage returns at the end before and after the </ref> code?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't listen do you? All of the tags are covered or unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Stop it or I will report you, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#HoundsOfSpring, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Linda McMahon

Hey HoundsofSpring!

I'm Screwball, and I want to say thank you for helping improve the Linda McMahon article. I don't know whether you could, but I would love to see some images and added info in her "on-screen roles" section. It's been disappointing that we had so many images on her page before, but they all were removed because of the Creative Commons policy. Anyway, I gotta admit, with some serious editing, we can make that page one helluva lot better.--Screwball23 talk 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed at the Administrators' notice board

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Odd_edits_by_HoundsOfSpring. EyeSerene^talk 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your reply in the ANI thread seems to me to amount to "I'm right, you're wrong". The problem is not your edit summaries but your misapplication of article cleanup tags. We expect all editors to take the concerns of their peers seriously and address potentially problematic editing; you aren't doing this (see WP:IDHT). I'm therefore leaving you this final request to stop misusing those tags. This, for example, is not only a completely incorrect use of the {{whom}} tag, but is edit warring. I'll be reluctant to apply sanctions to your account because you do also make some valuable edits, but I will block this account if there's any further disruption. EyeSerene^talk 09:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magical-girl?

Why do you change "magical girl" to "magical-girl" when you copyedit Sailor Moon articles? I've never seen the phrase as "magical-girl" in the literature, as "magical girl" seems to be preferred, and it adds unnecessary text to a page, especially when you pipe the phrase. --Malkinann (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I believe that WP:COMMONNAME contradicts your application of WP:HYPHEN, specifically "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." The common use is clearly the unhyphenated version. --Malkinann (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the term magical girl referred to as "magical-girl" in the literature that discusses the concept, and so I feel that the hyphenated version is wrong, as it is not what the literature uses. I could ask for further clarification at WP:ANIME, if you like? --Malkinann (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, but I really don't have the energy for such a discussion, so if you could bring this up with the grammar project, I'd appreciate it. My position is that nearly all of the literature which discusses the concept uses the unhyphenated version, e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. therefore the unhyphenated version is the common name, which should be used. Thanks. :) --Malkinann (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for looking after this for me, I really appreciate it. :) --Malkinann (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your tagging...

Hello. Just dropping you a note based on an AN/I post regarding some of your recent edits. I believe these edits are made in good faith. However, if you make such changes and find them reverted, it would be a better approach to discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than to restore the tags in turn. (Or at least in addition to doing so.) Judging by the edit summaries, it seems as if some other editors might not understand what you're requesting clarification about, or might feel that the information you're requesting is already present in the article, and an article summary isn't necessarily sufficient for explaining your motivations. While it's always your right to ask for clarifications or expansion, doing so purely by adding tags and comments to the article space is not necessarily the most transparent approach. Shimeru (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you're being discussed on ANI again. Pcap ping 07:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shadow Galactica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power (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) 11:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Born again changes

You made a lot of changes to Born again (Christianity) recently. It is surely good practice to leave a comment to explain your edits. I don't think there was much wrong with what you did, except a grammar fix I've just made, but some of your changes seem to be just for the sake of change. For instance, you change "An early example of the term in its more modern use is found in the sermons of John Wesley" to "An early example of the term in its more modern use appears in the sermons of John Wesley". Also, in the part I've fixed, you altered "The traditional Jewish understanding of the promise of salvation was that being rooted in "the seed of Abraham" referred to physical lineage from Abraham" to be "The traditional Jewish understanding of the promise of salvation interpreted being rooted in "the seed of Abraham" as in physical lineage from Abraham". Apart from the obvious nonsense it became - that's what I fixed - I don't see what was wrong with the original, and there was no comment to help me. Myrvin (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Primary Chronicle 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Nestor's many sources included earlier (now-lost) Slavonic chronicles, the [Byzantium | Byzantine]] annals of [[John Malalas]] and of [[George Hamartolus]], [[bylina | native legends]] and [[Norse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am#Consensus check

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am#Consensus check. Thanks. - Mr X 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]