User talk:Jayhawker6/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayhawker6. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 344agg21! 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:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! jayhawker6 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Collective nouns
Hello. I already explained in my revert of this edit of yours to Polaris (Australian band), but I'd just like to point you to MOS:PLURALS. In British English (which Australian English largely follows the practices of), collective nouns like the names of groups are most often treated as plurals, so using "are" rather than "is", as if they were a singular entity (as in American English) is correct. Thanks. Ss112 06:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Polycubes
Hi. Regarding your revert of my edit in the polycube article, the change is intended to be a revert of a previous edit. So there is no citation for me to include in my change.
As for the change i reverted, the paper that it referenced was calculating fixed polycubes (sequence A001931 in the OEIS), which is a separate enumeration to the ones mentioned in the wikipedia article. If you look through that OEIS page, the specific paper citation that i removed is mentioned. This sequence has also since been calculated up to n=20.
The two sequences mentioned in the wikipedia article (sequence A000162 in the OEIS) (sequence A038119 in the OEIS) have still only been calculated up to n=16. Please let me know if this isn't clear, and if anything further is needed to make this change. Thanks.
IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 3 months. If you still need an IP block exemption after it expires please file a new request. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I already read the Wikipedia ip block exemption page before requesting, but it can't hurt to re-read. jayhawker6 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
hello the beat 92 5 ckbe
Can we put that there is a problem with the stream on wiki 70.53.190.233 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not without reference material. Wikipedia:No original research is also important. jayhawker6 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
WiZ
Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding this revert, i've never seen a citation in a hatnote (and i think Wikipedia:Manual of Style says not to include citations in disambiguation), and i assumed the linked article would be citation enough. What do you say?
--173.67.42.107 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- If there is a linked article citation, then that would be good enough. Please just mention that such a thing exists in edit summary! Thank you for reaching out, and feel free to add this if the linked article says they were involved in such a way. (just mention where you got it!) jayhawker6 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Your signature
Could you change your signature to one that displays your username? See WP:SIGPROB. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I currently have a pending rename request. It should be accurate soon enough. Unless it takes as long as a rollback perm request. Then I might be waiting for a while. :/ jayhawker6 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Punctuation errors
The norms of WP:MOS include the following:
- wrong: 1914-1915
- right: 1914–1915
- wrong: pages 43-120
- right: pages 43–120
This edit of yours introduced many punctuation errors into the article. Does it do anything else? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Michael Hardy I reverted the previous edit because it introduced many other errors into the article, such as replacing "Space" with "S-ace", "Secret" with "S-cret", and "Signaling" with "S-gnaling". jayhawker6 (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- You could have fixed typographical errors in the previous edit without introducing more errors than you fixed. Then it would have been clear what you were doing. As it is, you made it appear as if you simply wanted to reintroduce errors that I had corrected. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be mistaken. I reverted an IP's changes. I could have spent the time to improve it beyond reverting an edit that broke the readability of the article so that the article was still easily readable, but I didn't. I don't have any obligation to. I acted in good faith and don't have any WP:OBLIGATION to go above and beyond. It looks like someone else (correctly) reverted your edits to that article earlier as it had the same problem and you then changed it back for some reason maybe WP:EWLO. Either way, you introduced problems into the article, while trying to fix an MOS issue. Someone reverted it because it introduced a much larger issue than it solved. Then, someone (an IP) made the exact same edit you did with the exact same problems. I did what the previous person did and reverted it because it introduced more serious problems than what it attempted to solve. jayhawker6 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also I believe the version I reverted introduced more serious errors than the errors it fixed. Not all errors are created equal. jayhawker6 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Michael Hardy: As I stated before, you should have looked into your reverted edit before re-introduced these typos two more times. Unfortunately, it seems that you still failed or refused to "get the point" even though you have got three blocks for personal attacks as a sysop since 2003. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- You could have fixed typographical errors in the previous edit without introducing more errors than you fixed. Then it would have been clear what you were doing. As it is, you made it appear as if you simply wanted to reintroduce errors that I had corrected. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: "Getting the point" would involve someone saying what the point is. That was lacking. Notice that I contacted you precisely for the purpose of finding out what the point is. And comparing my edits here to personal attacks is absurd and seems hostile. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
1: Replying to wrong person. @NmWTfs85lXusaybq would be the one you probably meant to ping here.- 2: If you are going to try and ping the wrong person at least spell my name right ;D
- 3: WP:STICK jayhawker6 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Your Philip Burne Jones revert
As indicated, picking one passage out of a 243-page book to damn someone for something broadly held at a time when in fact their views for the era were clearly leaning in a progressive direction is absolutely both MS:UNDUE, and POV. No matter that it is being driven by righteousness. It's misplaced righteousness, and neither neutral "scholarship" nor representative of "neutrality" at WP. As such, I am restoring the edit as made. 19:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC) 2601:196:180:DC0:9453:CEC6:3BFC:A9BC (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your language in the edit summary alone makes it clear that you are having problems adhering to WP:NPOV when deciding what to edit. This also does not give any validity to removing a valid source in it's entirety. jayhawker6 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Meaning of WP:USPLACE
The rule not to use "City, Country" or "City, State, Country" for US cities applies solely to article titles (page names). It has no bearing on how US cities are referred to in the text of an article. --Lambiam 12:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Self-trout jayhawker6 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
