"The Citadel of Weeping Pearls" by Aliette de Bodard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.188.220 ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello-

The Coffea page has accepted the change from berry to drupe, and I think in the name of consistency, the Coffee page should reflect that as well. The correct taxonomic classification is druple, and the common usage is not "berry" but "cherry" (see Coffea page). For reference, please see pg. 466 of "An Annotated Taxonomic Conspectus of the genus Coffea (Rubiaceae)," which is considered the primary authority on coffee taxonomy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.93.82.35 ( talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the National American Woman Suffrage Association page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Please take note of the requirement of WP:CITEVAR that articles which do not use citation templates should not be converted to use them without first seeking consensus on the article's talk page. I have reverted your edit. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Nitpicking polish, I wonder why you removed the urls Penttonen.1974 and Kuroda.1964. They seem to work still pretty well, don't they? - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 19:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The URLs worked, but they were redundant with the DOIs in the same entries, and the DOIs are (at least in theory) more stable across site reorganizations and the like. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Why did you revert my edit from "wooden." back to "wooden".? Typically periods are included within quotation marks when double quotation marks are used. Packer1028 ( talk) 18:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Packer1028: See MOS:LQ, which I pointed to in my edit comment. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't mind having thanked you for reverting my change to "in late March or early April", as I hadn't investigated and you were correct. I still think some change is in order, however, as the text still tends to read as "in late March or late April", and that was what concerned me. When I did briefly investigate, the latest date I saw was April 23. This would qualify as mid-April, so that one unambiguous version might be "in late March or early/mid-April" or some punctuational variant of that. Another possibility would be "in late March or in April", a minimal but effective change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy McCoy ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Roy McCoy: Good point; I've made the smaller change. Since, formally speaking, there is no latest possible date for Passover (with lots of qualifications on that statement—look at Hebrew calendar#Astronomical calculations if you care), I think that's both the simplest and most accurate change. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 19:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reversing those edits; either someone else is using my account, or I've been hacked; I didn't make them. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 16:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

It's marginal, I know, and the dates in Nutmeg are a mess, but the most frequently used style for |accessdate= is yyyy-mm-dd and your script should respect this and change access dates to this format, since this is an acceptable style as per MOS:DATEUNIFY. I reverted all the edits for now so you can check your script. Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Peter coxhead: Fair enough; I noticed the inconsistencies, but not that the accessdates were consistent. I probably won't have time for script tweaking in the near future, so I'll leave the dates alone for now. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 12:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually that's not how it was. The main dates were consistently md,y (but you changed them to dmy), and the access dates were inconsistent between three styles, but the slightly more common style was yyyy-mm-dd. My point is that you need to check separately the style used for "main dates" and the style used for access/archive dates, since MOS:DATEUNIFY allows these to be different, and then ensure that your script fixes them independently.

This is not, of course, to deny the value of making dates consistent, which I strongly support. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Nipicking. My impression is that he word sect doesn't work in this context: the main meaning of this term is "a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially :one regarded as extreme or heretical" (Merriam-Webster); "a religious group that has separated from a larger religion and is considered to have extreme or unusual beliefs or customs" (Cambridge Dictionary). Thank you -- Idris.albadufi ( talk) 13:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Idris.albadufi: As I said in my comment on the talk page, I'm not particularly attached to the word "sect", but the replacement phrase "communities of faith" has problems of its own. Among other things, in terms of internal consistency, the WP page for " sect" gives a definition that's at least arguably applicable, while the WP redirect for " community of faith" isn't appropriate at all. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 00:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Nitpicking polish, the nasalisation peculiarity of Portuguese is neither proved nor disproved as a Celtic feature simply because no one has conducted to my knowledge, a serious and thorough study on the topic. Historically however, it is a fact that the Celts dominated what is today's Portugal and the Lusitanians and Gallaecians were Celtic speakers. It is only natural that even though the ancient Celtic languages or dialects got lost, some of the sounds (and words) survived the subsequent languages brought by other peoples. The Romans brought Latin which replaced virtually all previous languages in this region of the world. Knowing the Celtic languages spoken today in the British isles to some degree and being 100% fluent in Portuguese, I can identify a number of common phonemes between these Celtic languages (particularly Scottish Gaelic. Listen to this and if you know European Portuguese well, you will identify a number of familiar sounds and even language rythm/cadence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GecqdL-BpXo) and European Portuguese. Like French although to a smaller extent, Portuguese has a number of phonetic features linked to the 'Keltoi' and/or the 'Celticised' peoples in Europe. Melroross ( talk) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Melroross: Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying (in which case, please correct me), if there are no reliable sources attesting this connection then, however likely it may be, your edits constitute original research, which is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. There is already a link to the page on Nasalization (which itself links to Irish eclipsis), and that might be an appropriate place to discuss the range of languages exhibiting some form of nasalization; but if your speculation itself isn't attested by any reliable sources then it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Have I mischaracterized your argument?

Just to point out that when you edited Apple recently, you incorrectly changed the formatting of some cultivar names. These always take single quote marks, not double ones. See MOS:SINGLE and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Peter coxhead: Arrgh. Thank you! I think I've even forgotten that before (and, possibly, you were even the same person who had to point it out to me last time). Thanks for cleaning up after me, and I'm sorry to have given you the work. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 16:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I know you mean well, but please stop changing date formats the way you've been doing e.g. at Mark Twain. An article's established format should generally be respected, and that includes (where present) the use of yyyy-mm-dd for access and archive dates. E Eng 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ EEng: I'm sorry I disrupted the style; and yes, I acknowledge that an existing style should be respected. The article has access and archive dates in multiple formats (including dmy), so it wasn't clear to me that there was a single established style, other than that suggested by the four year old "use mdy" template.

Well, I guess I didn't look closely enough to see there was inconsistency, and that does make the situation a bit different. On the whole, I find that most well-developed articles have taken to using the traditional MDY or DMY formats for publication dates, and the most "technical" yyyy-mm-dd format for access and archive dates, and that makes a nice visual distinction within each citation. As you probably know, people get a bit tetchy about scripted mass changes like that, so you need to be really careful. Anyway, happy editing. E Eng 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hey there! is it okay if you finish my work on the MCU article. The Optimistic One ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

For your edits on the Post Classical History article. -Sunriseshore

Hi there. Thanks for addressing this edit, but I'm a little confused: which of the new links produced an "easter egg"? The way I see it, the previous content is actually more potentially confusing than the new one. I'd like to understand your reasoning better. Cheers, -- Waldir ( talk) 13:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Waldir: Linking "initially used" to "Japanese mobile phone culture" seems like an Easter egg to me, but I see what you mean about the current situation. What do you think about just making the link explicit? E.g.,

Emoji were initially used (see Japanese mobile phone culture) by the Japanese mobile operators NTT DoCoMo, au, and SoftBank Mobile (formerly Vodafone).

Nitpicking polish ( talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

It's a bit more verbose, but sure, it would work :) -- Waldir ( talk) 16:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Waldir: Done. Maybe someone else can come up with a less cumbersome phrasing than I was able to manage. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Following various discussions, the consensus is to use drink instead of beverage on Wikipedia, and we are gradually updating usage across the project. If you have a rationale as to why we should use beverage instead of drink, the most appropriate course of action is to raise a discussion on either the talkpage of Drink, Alcoholic drink, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. You may notice previous discussions on this matter on all these talkpages (incidentally, I was originally in favour of beverage, and was convinced by others that drink is the more appropriate, so I know where you are coming from!). SilkTork ( talk) 18:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Please be careful when you use scripts to make grammar and spelling changes. With this edit you broke an image link by putting a hyphen in where there is no hyphen in the file name. This broke the image on the page. Please ensure you preview your changes to ensure nothing on the page is broken after your edits. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Actually I just noticed another one. Your script changed the proper noun of "In Contention" to "in Contention". I'd request that you please don't use scripts to do this kind of work as it will get some things wrong because context matters and a script can't always determine that. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Canterbury Tail: Ouch. Thanks for catching both of those, and I'm sorry to give you extra work. I try to be more careful to check script output—specifically to avoid this kind of screwup—and I really should have caught both of those before publishing! Nitpicking polish ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Well the scripts are great for identifying possible issues easier than reading through everything, you just need to check and be sure that what they're changing is in fact accurate. Canterbury Tail talk 15:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Toronto, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Johnny Au _{( talk/ contributions)} 15:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

You reverted an edit of mine, earlier this year. The article was "Early Muslim Conquests" and your argument was that I had "made a grammatical sentence ungrammatical." (You meant, of course, that I'd made the sentence, which had originally used standard English grammar, into one which did not. This is ironic, from my perspective, because it had seemed to me that the situation was actually the opposite.) Please look again, at the sentence I wrote, and compare it to the original (you decided that this original was superior, to my edit). Here is my work, followed by the original sentence (with the verb now underlined, for the sake of emphasizing its syntactical context):

In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before been reclaimed from the Persians.

In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before being reclaimed from the Persians.

Using my choice of verb tense, and keeping the exact same phrases, the sentence can be structurally transformed, while preserving its semantic meaning, thus:

In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had been reclaimed from the Persians, only a few years before.

The same structural transformation reveals your choice of verb tense as non-standard, to the extent that, to one who lacked faith in your comprehension of the subject matter, it might seem erroneous:

In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had being reclaimed from the Persians, only a few years before.

Perhaps you mistakenly interpreted the sentence as having a meaning which parallels the following:

*In the case of Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years, before being reclaimed by the Byzantines from the Persians.

But I doubt that you would have had such a thought, since the time that is central to this article is the time of the Arab conquests. And when the Arabs conquered Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, those lands had already been reclaimed by the Byzantines, from the Persians. The Byzantines did not reclaim those lands from the Persians after the Arabs had conquered those lands. In the time period from the year 622 to the year 661, the political control of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria went in the following chronological order: Byzantines-Persians-Byzantines-Arabs. It did not go *Byzantines-Persians-Arabs-Persians-Byzantines. I can accept, with gratitude, your correction of my mistake. I cannot accept the confusion that I feel, when I try to apply your justification, for the negation of the fix that I'd applied. Nor can I ignore that gap in my aptitude, which leaves me bewildered, by your English usage. I have come here now, because I seek the balm which is Understanding, so that I may use it to soothe the ignominy of your revision of my edit. catsmoke ( talk) 23:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Catsmoke: My apologies, especially given all the work you did here to analyze the edit. I was simply confused by the phrasing, and incorrectly reverted your edit. Had I read it correctly, or thought more carefully about the chronology, I would have just added a pair of commas to make the phrasing clearer. I see that a later edit by another user both restored your change and clarified the syntax.

Please explain why you are removing content that is cited to an encyclopedia and leaving uncited content in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 犬ヶ崎 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 犬ヶ崎: As I explained in the comment for this edit, the material in question, whatever the source, is a cookbook level of detail, which doesn't seem to fit with WP:NOTACOOKBOOK. If you disagree, discuss on the talk page and let's see what the general consensus is. As for other material being uncited, feel free to add "citation needed" tags or remove uncited material, as seems appropriate. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 16:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I see you point and I removed all of "how to" content but it seems strange to remove only the cited content and leave all the other content about the oil temperature, or content like "To preserve the natural flavor and texture of the ingredients, care is taken not to overcook tempura.". It seems like reverting new changes without even looking at the content in the article. And because it was marked minor I didn't see the revert on my watchlist. 犬ヶ崎 ( talk) 16:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 犬ヶ崎: My apologies, then, for the cryptic reversion. Your later edit seems like a clear improvement, and thank you for cleaning up more carefully than I did. Nitpicking polish ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

No harm done, thanks for your input. I'm satisfied with this version. I thought about removing some of those excessive details like instructions for how to avoid burns. In hindsight, that may have been better then adding to them. 犬ヶ崎 ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for providing some nitpicky polish, it's much appreciated. I'm hoping to take the article to FAC, so if you have further suggestions, they are most welcome. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply