User talk:Nygdan

Bektashi

I have now reverted your edits for a third time. Stop dumping copyrighted text. You also claim to be changing the "image code" but I only see you deleting images. If you rephrase the content then it can be added. freestylefrappe 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

You're welcome. You should definitely check out Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for the syntax for images. The method I'm using for footnotes is pretty new, so if you ever edit a page that already has footnotes, it will probably do them a different way: watch out!

By the way, there's something very screwy with your signature. Clicking on it takes you to User=Nygdan instead of User:Nygdan. You definitely need to fix that.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I remember getting the cleanup tag put on the very first article I created. It wasn't a good feeling. I suggest just looking over a few similar articles (Shinto, Je Tsongkhapa, Hussite) and see if you can get an idea of how they usually look. The easiest thing is to put section headings and sub-section headings. Those are inserted with the double or triple equals signs (==). Notice the category tags at the bottom of every article, edit the page to see how they are added.

For content, try looking over the Wikipedia:Cleanup page. Usually a good article will have a good introduction, with the who/what/when/why all in about 2 short paragraphs, and pictures are nice. You can scan in your own pictures too, see Wikipedia:Images for more on that. But more importantly on content, you should avoid making a lot of general vague comments and phrases like "some people think" or "apparently they do this..." If there is a source then quote it, or if you're getting info from a published source then quote the source under a "references" section at the bottom.

Good luck. Cuñado - Talk 02:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not an admin, try User:Geni, he's an admin that works on a lot of Islam related pages. Cuñado

- Talk 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be redirected anyone can do that. Is there any information that is in the article that is not in Alawite?Geni 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The References code style

Not too long ago you helped me in using the <ref> tag. On the Tinwiki, we are trying to work out how to standardize our citations. Do you know what is involved in establishing the <ref> tag format for new Wikis? I very much like the <ref> tag format, and want to introduce it early to our Wiki. Or perhaps you can point me out to someone that can help? Nygdan 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know it's a MediaWiki extension; see m:Cite/Cite.php. I know user User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote it, so he could probably answer any technical questions that the Cite.php page doesn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis and Conspiracy theory

Thank you for your generous offer, but given a choice between assisting you in a scheme that slyly promotes conspiracy theories, as opposed to mortification of the flesh by rusty chain saw, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. I decline.--Cberlet 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pub Politics

A tag has been placed on Pub Politics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also 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 {{hangon}} 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 admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wesley Donehue

The article Wesley Donehue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears not to be notable - the only apparent evidence of notability is that he was recently named as a rising star by one magazine, that he once had a guest who made offensive remarks, and that he responded to some marginally controversial texts about a third party. Fails WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Pub Politics

I have nominated Pub Politics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pub Politics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rancheros visitadores for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rancheros visitadores is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rancheros visitadores until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cat-five t c ---- 10:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Child sacrifice may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

{{cquote|There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism" on Jefferson article

I support your adding more context to the Jefferson article about how he was an awful slaveholder and rapist, but a couple suggestions to make your changes more likely to stick:

a) don't characterize others' reversions or deletions of your material as "vandalism" in your edit summaries. The other editors may be wrong, but they are not vandals defacing the article because they think it's funny, and misuse of that term is a way that some people (unsuccessfully) try to avoid the 3-revert rule.

b) Make your edits more encyclopedic in style: don't use contractions, make sure to copy edit (Jefferson threatened death and rape for non-compliance, not compliance), and cite sources of some kind if you can. That last one is really key; it's harder for people to just dump your changes if you have a good article or two to support your point, especially if you attribute opinions to the author of the article rather than stating them without qualification. It should be obvious that slaves cannot consent to sex with their masters, but if people are going to fight with you about it, beat them with sources. SS451 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Thomas Jefferson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thomas Jefferson. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Regards, YoPienso (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd that you'd give me a 'warning', when you are the one that improperly deleted an edit, presumably for personal reason. -N.

I'm not "the one"; several of us have removed your inappropriate commentary.

Please engage on the article's talk page. YoPienso (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not where the substance of the article goes. Describing slave rape as slave rape, or slave ownership as slave ownership is not commentary. -N

Even though you've had an account here since 2006 I see you've made only 272 edits. Wikipedia can be frustrating and fellow editors can seem unfair to a person unfamiliar with the editing philosophy and process. You may wish to run through the tutorial below. Also, the second pillar in the link "The five pillars of Wikipedia" is germane to your commentary at Thomas Jefferson. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here long enough to know how it works, and your idea that what I put in is 'commentary' is ludicrous. And thanks but no thanks, I don't 'need more training' -N

You could at least inform yourself on the purpose, use, and format of talk pages. YoPienso (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already aware of what talk pages are for, you should probably familiarize yourself with what the article pages are for, since you apparently don't know. -N.

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We rarely put Dr in front of a person's name

See MOS:DOCTOR. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]