User talk:Callinus/Archive 5

This 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Originally, I linked audacious without piping, but it went to a disambiguation page. I found a definition for audacious in Wiktionary, but it looked like this "wikt:audacious" without piping.

What is the correct way to link to a sister project without piping?

I will look here for your response.Comfr (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comfr The word "Audacious" is a common English word and Anglophone readers should be able to understand it.

WP:UNDERLINK "articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary could be used."

WP:OVERLINK states not to link "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" and "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect."

Audacious is an everyday word understood by most readers. -- Callinus (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were concerned about my use of a piped link, because you referenced MOS:PIPE. The problem is actually WP:OVERLINK.

The word "Audacious" appeared in my source, so I used it in my edit to the article. After saving the page, I wondered what the word really meant. I have heard the word many times, but felt unsure of the meaning, and felt concerned about that other readers might have the same problem. After some consideration, I added the link to a definition.

Thank you for reviewing my edit. I accept your judgement. Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia. Comfr (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Female Suicide Bombers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chechen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my edit summaries. I did that to be funny and I didn't think it was a problem but thank you for telling me this. I promise I won't do that anymore. WTCM47 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)WTCM47 WTCM47 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. STSC (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Callinus, I'm not sure what this edit summary is based on; per WP:TAGBOMB, "Tag bombing does not apply to the moderate use of tags that are self explanatory": I believe putting a notability tag on a seemingly non-notable page after failing to find sufficient sources, without opening a Talk thread, is standard procedure, not tag-bombing. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asif Mohiuddin 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/Asif Mohiuddin 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 notice from the top of the article. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted one of my edits for reputation.com article. I've never seen the tag you included on the reversion. Can you explain to a newbie? I'm interested in start-up pages and have been contributing to other similar articles. Just want to make sure I'm following the rules. Thanks!

"WP:SOAP (possible conflict of interest or [[WP:PAID|undeclared paid editing) - MOS:TMRULES WP:PEACOCK)"

Tastelessoreo (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tastelessoreo: Welcome to Wikpidedia. Please familiarise yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia and what wikipedia is not. Specifically, the soapbox policy states that wikipedia is not for "Advertising, marketing or public relations".

Please look up the policy on paid editing by PR consultants, and conflict of interest editing by PR consultants. The Manual of Style policy on Trademarks says "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols". The Manual of Style policy on words to watch states not to use flowery prose to promote a product, like claiming there is a "flagship" product without attribution.

It's OK to use verbatim quotes of product reviews, so long as they are attributed properly and are properly cited.

If reviews of a product use exact statements, then the exact statement should be quoted verbatim to avoid changing the sentiment. -- Callinus (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Callinus. I already replied to you in the talk page of Tesla Model S. Regarding the part of the last edit I removed, I think such detail belongs to the main section "Autopilot." The way you did it IMO goes against WP:NPOV, because it seems like arguments to defend Tesla that are not explicit in the sources, and Tesla's official statement is already there. However, when I did the short edits in the main Autopilot section the purpose was to provide background to the fatal accident, and I notice that this section is lacking a detailed explanation of the Autopilot technology. So I invite you to fill that gap, and look for reliable sources to explain how Autopilot works, its limitations, and Tesla's recommendations to owners. If you want to use bare references is OK, me or another editor will format them properly later. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Ramadan attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Shabab. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)