![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
You removed my link to a web page by Tom O'Carroll reflecting on his recent conviction on the grounds that it was a 'convicted criminal's defence'. Is that a reference to a specific policy and if so, could you provide me with a link? Thanks. Researcher1000 ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Philip Cross.
Sally Brampton, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!) 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Cases in point: in Sally Brampton, your revert of my changing "agony aunt" to "advice column" - and just now I read "knock-on effect" in the Call the Midwife page. I've long known the policy of WP articles being consistent in the use of UK English vs. US English on a per-page basis, adhering to the form in which the article was started besides the apparent value of writing on British topics in British English and vice-versa. However, I'd always (though perhaps mistakenly) understood this to refer to the differing forms of style and grammar, not to idioms whose meaning might be opaque or tone confusing to those using other forms of English. (As a user of US English, I find the idiomatic term "agony aunt" at best jocular if not downright derogatory, while "advice column" is neutral.) This is, after all, an encyclopedia - and I don't see the place of low-register vernacular when writing content intended as informative and understandable by global readers of English. My next step will be to clarify the matter of regional idioms in the WP Manual of Style and consult with administrators if need be. Should I find anything definitive that supports my premise rather than yours, I'll return and advise you. -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 19:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
On 28 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sally Brampton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sally Brampton was The Sunday Times's agony aunt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sally Brampton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Sally Brampton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Laura Kuenssberg". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 June 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Laura Kuenssberg, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 20:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Good morning, You removed Jean-Max Albert's tribute to Thelonious Monk and I don't understand what you mean by main article. Is this Jean-Max Albert's main article ? Thank you. -- Françoise Very ( talk) 07:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but I’m sorry that there is no other tribute to Thelonious Monk beside the music field. It seemed interesting to me to point out some relationship to visual art, especially throughout structure. (Jean-Max Albert published also Thelonious Monk Architect). Thank you anyway.-- Françoise Very ( talk) 17:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by
The Interior,
Ocaasi,
UY Scuti,
Sadads, and
Nikkimaria
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on Matheson. I noticed that you corrected some of the text to British spelling. I thought she was fascinating and well deserving of an article, but clearly am not from that side of the pond. Please feel free to change any of the other text to comply with British norms. I appreciate the assistance. SusunW ( talk) 14:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's in the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference so it's perfectly proper to call it a public school. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
To call Owen Jones reputable and credible when it comes to reporting on Milne is stretching things rather far I think. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I refer to your revert on The Sun (United Kingdom). The infobox should be a neutral place, describing the paper. It would be best if it is just a logo displaying the paper or something like that. There should not be a reason to raise a controversial topic in the infobox, which can be done in the "Controversies" section in any article.
The tone of the infobox should be neutral, but the fact that this claim is even asserted shows that the editor who added it is likely trying to highlight that the paper is controversial (which it is), but this is not the main purpose of the article. Now, this would be appropriate if the article is "Controversies of the Sun" or something similar. Is it not appropriate to have a neutral description with a somewhat neutral/less controversial front page (which occurs most of the time), instead of highlighting one of the few front pages which causes controversy?
To put it in another way, let's say 20% of the Sun's front pages cause great controversy. It doesn't make sense to put one of this 20% in the infobox, instead of the 80%, which would be undue representation. Now, if 80% of the front pages are that controversial, then I agree (especially if there is a source to prove this). -- 219.74.85.176 ( talk) 13:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't know Swedish, but "kattorna" is "female cats" according to the Wiktionary (that's also how the film's title was translated into Polish). Chilton ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)