User talk:OneLove955

Welcome

Hello, OneLove955! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for your edits in Kubera. I have addressed your comments on Talk:Kubera. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Graves

Hi, thanks for your Robert Graves comment. Could you add the full Penguin page ref that you mention by Graves' name detail at the head of the article? I have added the "von" bit. Any other useful (ref'd) biographical info you come across in the book would be very welcome. Thanks Span (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your good work on the article. Sterling stuff! Enjoy the weekend. Span (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! OneLove955 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits under discussion on MMY

Thanks for your note. However I'm not sure why you're addressing it to me. Many editors of that article make "unilateral" edits and engage in reverts.[1] There are active discussions on the talk page, and we're all working towards a better article. If you want to prohibit reverts, please set the example you want others to follow. Will Beback talk 04:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe every complaint you see without looking into it further. You say I should "consider carefully" Keithbob's accusation of page ownership. I encourage you to look a little more carefully before you assume that charge is accurate. Here's a list of contributors to the MMY biography: [2]. Aside from myself, the top nine editors are all apparently MMY followers. Keithbob alone has made almost twice as many edits to the article as I have, and collectively those eight editors have made 1,785 edits, more than eight times as many edits as I've made. So if your concern is with article ownership, then I think you need to look at the person who made that accusation. I assume you don't think that an article on a religious leader should belong to his followers. As for my own behavior, I discuss my edits and work with other editors in a collegial and civil manner. Enjoy your wikibreak, I look to working with you more in the future, on the MMY and other articles. Will Beback talk 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by your statement Will. The TM arbitration clearly did not group together editors or label them, and I'd suggest we follow that example. Unless editors have labelled themselves as "followers", I'd also suggest that you don't either. Clearly, as the sources indicate using a technique does not in anyway indicate someone is a "follower" of MMY, and have all of these editors on your list said specifically they use this technique, or are you assuming that.

The numbers you cite above are relatively meaningless. As overall edit numbers, they don't indicate the kind of edits; copy edits pile up fast while adding content and sources may add up slowly, nor can ownership be claimed from simply counting edit numbers, nor for that matter can ownership be claimed by the kinds of edits an editor makes. Ownership is a state of mind that allows an editor to think they can control both editors and articles, and that for some reason they have a right to do so. And if you are suggesting that edit numbers indicate some affiliation to the TM organization, a real stretch at best, then you as the editor who seems to have have written more TM related articles than any other other editor on your "list" by extension must be affiliated as well. I'd suggest treating editors as individuals, and that labeling editors hints at bias, while tossing them into a meaningless category and isolating them as a group that you then suggest has biased control in itself appears to be a way of creating ownership for yourself.(olive (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Edit counts are not the only symptom of ownership, just the most easily accessed. Littleolive oil and other editors have engaged in a range of ownership behaviors but I don't see the benefit in listing them all here. My point is just that sometimes editors accuse other of the very behavior in which they're engaged. I think that's the case with Keithbob, which is why I consider his accusations to be made with unclean hands.

If there is a problem with any specific edits of mine I'd be happy to discuss them on the relevant talk page. Will Beback talk 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will. Your comments are completely predictable.(olive (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

As is the agreement among the pro-TM editors. If editors don't wish to be treated as a group they shouldn't act like a group. Will Beback talk 06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we use the TM arbitration as a guide...It didn't group or reprimand editors as a group, and neither should we.(olive (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The ArbCom laid out a number of principles, including the importance of following NPOV for COI editors, and of verifiably summarizing reliable sources. I look forward to all the editors following those admonitions. I have good faith that we will do so. Even you. Will Beback talk 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg

Just found your article on Anatol Goldberg. Good work! I've polished it up a bit. Hope you return from your break refreshed and ready to resume contributing. DS (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! Thanks a lot for taking the trouble. OneLove955 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Skolnick

Hi Spicemix, I have to wonder why you chose to create the Andrew Skolnick article? You've only created two, so why did I get one of those honors? Thanks for all your contributions. Askolnick (talk)

TM Research

I have a question about the recent additions to the article. Please see the article talk page. Will Beback talk 20:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll respond shortly. OneLove955 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence case and birds

I'm not a fan of Title Case for species names, but it is an established convention here, and is explicitly mentioned at MOS:CAPS as an exception to the usual rule. I suggest you stop decapitalising bird articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! I should have read a little further. Thanks for your alert. But it's a weird thing, and I don't agree with it. OneLove955 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

afd Carmel School Giridih

Your comments are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel School Giridih. Please note that you are being notified as you are one of the editors of this page , Thank youÐℬig XЯaɣ 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon

Ok sorry for that, I never called it Lyons, but I checked it is correct. But there is one link that is wrong.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits to Cappadocian Fathers

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman

This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Hi OneLove955, Good to see you are still around. I haven't seen you for a while. You are now a Journeyman editor and can present this User Award on your page, if you so desire. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! OneLove955 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you...

I have seen your recent efforts in the article on Ronnie Lane. I would love to see the article expanded; there's plenty of material to add to it, and I think the Small Faces and The Faces, with Lane as a prominent songwriter, helped to shape rock and roll history. Please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you have questions or need help! :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! I see the little box mentioning you as a new editor, but somehow I don't really think that is utterly true... either way, the help is always kindly offered, and I see you met User:Keithbob earlier who is a nice chap too. Think good thoughts! :)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello, OneLove955, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I appreciate it. OneLove955 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

— Keithbob • Talk • is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

PS and thanks for your help with the Natural Law Party related discussions and mergers. Peace!!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at SMcCandlish's talk page. – SMcCandlish 19:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Monty Guild

Please participate if you have time.[3] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted some edits you made on SS Kronprinz Wilhelm‎. Nothing really major, just some grammatical issues. We don't use the long hyphens to separate dates and we don't start sentences with numerals. When starting sentences with a number we almost always spell it out. Thanks for your contributions to the project! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy of this note, I appreciate it. I take the point about not beginning a sentence with numerals, but I think it will look odd at longer nos, 131, etc.

With number ranges such as 1914/1918 I thought there was clear policy: see MOS:NDASH. If you look in the lead of the article you'll see 1914–1915. When you say "we", do you mean a local consensus at a WikiProject? Thanks again, OneLove955 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uggh. I stand corrected. The shorter form of the dash (en) is used for denoting date spans. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Zeitgeist RfC

A few users are talking about merging the Zeitgeist articles in an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V. R. Krishna Iyer

Continuing from the Edit Summary of 18:44, 7 January 2015‎, the 'Undo' to the earlier reverts finds support from the article - "Against the Current: Farid al-Din ‘Attar’s Diverse Voices" - Yaghoobi, Claudia (Persian Literary Studies Journal (PLSJ) V.1, No.1, Autumn-Winter 2012 ISSN: 2557-2322 at http://plsj.shirazu.ac.ir/pdf_604_7409b2e0373769752ac96ad54f5e3f8b.html) specifically the lines on an anachronistic narrative and the arguments countering it (pp 95-96). - SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I left this reply on my talk page: I am sorry for the delayed reply but I have been in the hospital for tests for a few days. I have removed the material again. I do not see any relevance to the article for this statement of a rape by a nephew even if he inherited some of the property. Besides that, it was unsourced when it was originally put in the article and it remained unsourced because the bare urls put into the text (improperly) simply referred back to the editing page of the article. I do not watchlist articles in which I find problems when looking at recent changes because they would run into the many thousands, so I can't guarantee that this will not be put back in the article. If it is, I hope someone is watching who will realize it is not supported, really it is not even relevant. Donner60 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick

I wonder if you can help me to find a reference for this article, James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick? There are several referances to "White-Spunner", but this author is not listet in the bibliography. Can we possible identify him and his book? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Specific links"

Hello.

Why did you "restore specific links"? Per what guideline? How does that help the reader? In the context, e.g. Weaver's place of death, the article refers to "Des Moines, Iowa". It does not refer to Iowa itself.

One should avoid common link targets, so where did you see a guideline supporting your changes?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being in touch. Please note that this is a featured article with that style of link and I was restoring it. When I researched it some time ago I found there has repeatedly been consensus on the MOS talk page for that style; whether it has made it into the manual I don't know. Here is a recent example from an FA. But the preference is clear to me: people clicking on the second element of the link get what they want, or if you feel the second element is redundant as in Victoria above, then it needn't be linked. OneLove955 (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I'm afraid I don't follow, and I can't see that you answered any of my questions. At this particular moment, the article's "style of link" is inconsistent, with "Place, State" linked separately in the infobox, while in the lead section, "Place" links to "Place, State" and "State" is unlinked, and in the first sentence of the first section, "Place, State" is linked, as one unit, to "Place, State".

Yes, it's an FA article, which is why I think it's important with consistency. And, following the guideline MOS:OVERLINK, which discourages links to common targets, "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions". FA articles are not exempt from this.

If the article refers to Dayton, Ohio, it's not referring to the state of Ohio, it's referring to a place in that state. There's no need to link the state separately, as per MOS:OVERLINK.

Regards,

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schott

Your tag "associated with the subject" - the subject was "born" in 1770. Who do you think is close. They publish the music by some great composers, - two recently died, Wilhelm Killmayer and Klaus Huber. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

ps: Martin knows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-letter state abbreviations

Oklahoma . In the past whenever it was brought up anybody I talked about it with admitted they weren't clear as to whether it applied to everywhere in the text or only in body text (since infobox and, especially, footnote, text is smaller and the full state name may not be as readable (for accessibility reasons, we stopped using "½" in favor of the more-complicated-to-type "1⁄2")). I am aware of it not being as transparent to readers outside of North America, but to me that's always had a simple solution: Link the town name and the abbreviation, so readers can mouse over it (Not a solution in print, though).

I'll admit some of the counterarguments are valid: not everyone, even in the US, is clear on what all of them (I can see people mixing up the Montana and Minnesota abbreviations, although that's about the only pair that I can see being confused). I wish I had had a chance to be involved in that discussion, but really it's such a minor issue. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spicemix. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]