User talk:WildEric19/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, WildEric19, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Adam Conover did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page 1990s. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regard Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source: Your edits are both unsourced (or worse, the source doesn't support your statement) and off-topic. The page discusses the use of Wikipedia as a reliable source on Wikipedia. If properly sourced, it might be appropriate in WP:Academic use. However, I notice that reference [2] in WP:Academic use is a column (not generally considered reliable) criticizing a judge (not an academic) for citing Wikipedia. The NY Times article might be a better choice, although I'm not sure I would consider it reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm Interstellarity. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Decade—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

decades

Hi WildEric, thanks for your note, I saw it and was going to respond but got an edit conflict just as you removed it; -I looked at your source but it specifically states that we don't use that form "For example, we say “the eighties” instead of “the 199th decade.”". I also conducted a number of searches using Google Books NGram viewer for uses of this form, which I've included links to on the talk page of Decade, and found no usage for this form at all. I'd say describing the "9th decade of the 20th century" is merely plain English, but I have updated this part to clarify any groups of decades can be numbered ordinally. -As indeed can any group of anything, e.g the first word in my sentence, the third car you owned, the second world war, etc. I hope that resolves the issues. Thanks again.Frond Dishlock (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry man, I dropped the conversation. Sorry if I sounded somewhat aggressive, that's not who I am. I guess I just have to let it go, and I did. Hopeful we'll be buds. Oh and PS, by instead, they mean we use 1980-1989 instead of 1981-1990, but let's forget that. WildEric19 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing revision

Hi WildEric19, I noticed you were being helpful and said the following and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reply with a question or contact me on 15:23, 22 January 2020 but then removed the comment on 15:24, 22 January 2020 citing You're a patroller, you don't need help – this made me sad, disappointed and somewhat offended. Yes, I am a patrolled, but we all need help sometimes, and you extending your help and then not wanting to extend help made me sad. Please don't do that again. Sincerely, CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, responded at your talk page. WildEric19 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple edits

Hi WildEric19. Can I suggest that you make use of the "Show preview" button on "Editing" pages, which gives us an opportunity to see the effect of our edits before publishing them. I tend to click through new edits sequentially, and it can be a little irritating to encounter a whole string of edits made over a short period of time before finally reaching your final version. Just trying to help. - Blurryman (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blurryman, I'm sorry for that. I didn't know how the "show preview" option functions so I normally ignored it until you told me. Thanks for the instruction and Sorry about that. WildEric19 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WildEric19. No problem. Glad to help. I'm still learning stuff too. - Blurryman (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help out? I'm using the Wikipedia app, where can I press "Edit Preview"? I'm 81, I have no knowledge with 21st century technology. WildEric19 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WildEric19. I'm not far behind you at 75, but I use a desktop PC so I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia app and whether there are any differences with that. When I have displayed, as now, the screen for "Editing User talk:WildEric19 (section)", at the bottom there are four buttons: "Publish changes" which is highlighted in blue, "Show preview" in b/w, "Show changes" in b/w, and "Cancel" in red. Pressing "Show changes" will display a page showing the existing text on the left and your changes on the right, highlighting the changes you have made. Pressing "Show preview" will temporarily display the Wikipedia page as it will actually appear if you publish your changes (or it will show only the section, if you are editing within a sub-section of a page). I hope this helps. Also hope you are well now; I see it's pretty cold where you are! Here in the south of the UK, we've got mild and wet. - Blurryman (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Colorado Springs is very chilly because it's Winter over here. I believe you guys are in the summer time If I'm not mistaken? I am doing fine, thank you. I have been to my doctor recently and everything checked out alright thankfully. I just have to go jogging every morning and watch how much calories I'm consuming per day from now on to the day I die. Wait until you reach your 80s and you'll see what I mean. As per the tablet, I still can't figure out how to even operate this damn thing. Sometimes I have to call my son or grandkids to help me out. Perhaps it's best if I get a computer. WildEric19 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing Revision

You have just reverted my change with regard to Klaus Fuchs. If you look up the entry for Fuchs you will find him described as an atomic spy. Under the circumstances it seems entirely appropriate that the entry should reflect this - or are you trying to protect the reputation of the university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriodeFollower (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit because I felt it was redundant. As per your comment suggesting that I can look up the "atomic spy" article, Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't use it as a citation. WildEric19 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]