User talk:Ivogusa

April 2019

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed content from April 15 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it was a mistake. I was doing right but on the wrong date :-), so I hope it was left untouched.

Graphical date changes automation

Hey, I just was approving a couple of your format changes on the date pages, and I think they look nicer. Since there are quite a few of them, I was wondering if you have considered requesting someone with AWB to automate it. Have a nice day! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ivogusa! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Sm8900 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, thank you for your warm welcome to your wikifamily. I have studied the recomended info pages to orient myself within the Wikipedia. I would love to contribute even more but my handicap is not so perfect English. I hope if I enter anything at the sandbox, some good soul will eventually correct my English. I contribute over two years into the Czech Wikipedia so I have some expierence and hope I will be good addition to Wiki-team.Ivogusa (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eras in WP:DOY articles

Please see the project template for the days of the years pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template. The template specifies 3 eras only and none are the ones you're adding. Please undo your edits on the DOY pages adding other subsections or change them to be in alignment with the project standards. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the issue. If I understan correctly, there are only 3 fixed categories: Pre-1600, 1601-1900, 1901-present. We do not take into consideration the 21st Century as a special section? What if there is just 5 entries in the category 1601-1900, and 80 entries in 1901-present. Wouldn´t it be practical to brake any category with (let´s say 50+ enteries) into subcategories? Ok, I will correct my previous entries

Please adviceIvogusa (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The project strives for quality and consistency. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing some very solid work on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year pages. Thanks for all your efforts there. Please consider adding your name to the list of participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. The work you're already doing implies that you're already a member. Please keep up the great work! Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I back up Toddst1's reply. Please stick to the three sub-headings: Pre-1600, 1601-1900 and 1901-present. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will ... however, the sub-headings are there for easier orientation on the page. If a death list has over 150 names, then some smaller division would be more helpful, don't you think?

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your solid work on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year articles. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your award. I need your advice. Eposty has reversed my graphical edit of the page "June 4" by removing tag 0 to justify numbers of the years to the right border. I disagree with his edit but don´t know how to contact him a tell him, that it is systematic on all other pages. Please adviceIvogusa (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivogusa – I keep removing the graphical spacing because that was the last thing I was told to do. Initially I was removing them because I was told to do that by some that was editing the pages more than I was, so I started to put the spacing in. That carried on for a while and then I was told by someone else to stop putting in the right-justify spaces. That was the last thing that I was told to do, so that is why I keep removing what you are adding. posty (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

I've reverted your changes to the sub-headings in this article because you had literally applied the examples used in the project template. Those examples were agreed upon as an illustration of how long lists of births and deaths should be split (events too, when necessary). After you applied the examples literally, we ended up with only three births before 1601, about 20 from then until 1900 and over 50 from 1901. That rather defeats the object of splitting the lists into moreorless equal sub-sections to aid readability.

By all means split long lists but do so in a way that is helpful to readers and remember that a template is there for illustration only. The whole point of a template is to provide a format that is used as a basis for the actual detail. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the way I used to do it. I split the number of entries (dates) logically by groups with roughly same number of dates. But then I was corrected see below:

Please see the project template for the days of the years pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template. The template specifies 3 eras only and none are the ones you're adding. Please undo your edits on the DOY pages adding other subsections or change them to be in alignment with the project standards. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the issue. If I understand correctly, there are only 3 fixed categories: Pre-1600, 1601-1900, 1901-present. We do not take into consideration the 21st Century as a special section? What if there is just 5 entries in the category 1601-1900, and 80 entries in 1901-present. Wouldn´t it be more practical to brake any category with (let´s say 50+ enteries) into subcategories? Ok, I will correct my previous entries

Please advice. Ivogusa (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. The project strives for quality and consistency. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be doing some very solid work on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year pages. Thanks for all your efforts there. Please consider adding your name to the list of participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. The work you're already doing implies that you're already a member. Please keep up the great work! Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you, the big cheeses get together and make up some rules. I am more then happy to correct all 366 days, but I need consistent instructionIvogusa (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to be confused and certainly you were using a common sense approach originally by applying correct sub-heading formats to split the number of dates in a list on a logical basis. Unfortunately, the template is completely misleading as it stands and is being misconstrued. As I'm sure you're aware, a template provides a guideline towards layout and format. It does not prescribe specific values unless there is an instruction to actually use a specific value – the project's style guide does in fact prescribe Events, Births, Deaths, etc. for the level two headings, which is fair enough, but there is no such precision for the level three sub-headings. Please feel free to join the new topic at the project talk page if you wish. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said many times before: I wish you were all singing from the same sheet music. Each of you says something different. Read the previous discussion above (especially remarks from Toddst1.)

June 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I don't make any text edits per se (those I note properly), just graphical changes based on instruction I got, but I will comment it as "graphical adjustments"Ivogusa (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 1906 in music, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If I check entries on this music page, there is almost NO reference. I thought that on those "sub-pages" it is not as neccesarry (based on the surrounding entries). In that case you would have to erase 99% of them. Why only mine? Ivogusa (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivogusa, it was previously consensus that these entries didn't need to be cited. That consensus changed. See WP:DOYCITE. Elizium23 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viking sack

Hey Ivog. I've been seeing all your good work on the DOY project. Please keep it up and thank you!

I noticed this edit, while it had a source, it was a WP:USERGENERATED (blog) post. I'm sure there's a better source that should be used. Toddst1 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Toddstl, you are right, I will try to find better source. Thanks for bringing it to my attentionIvogusa (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1907, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christiania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]