User talk:Harfarhs - Knowledge (XXG)

2455:). However, the fact remains that she was elected, and was its leader for eighteen days or so. I'm going to suggest restoring your changes, apart from the phrase about her refusal, because I still argue it is unencyclopedic language, and just because that wording is used elsewhere doesn't make for a valid argument to use it here. You have to ask yourself how such a choice of wording would be viewed if this were a Good or Featured Article candidate. There's another reference to her refusing to do something, which I'm also going to remove. I've also found that using terms such as "that year's election", and so on, tend to be discouraged, but we'll leave that for now. As for the other articles you mention, they probably need a copy edit, but I don't have the time or inclination to do it. 3502:. A couple of your ideas are unobjectionable, though not improvements, but the net effect of your alterations would be to make the prose of the article worse. On the more general point of drive-by edits of GAs, I don't know if you are familiar with Knowledge (XXG)'s quality assessment arrangements, but articles awarded "Good Article" status have been through an independent review (in this case by an editor who has the distinction of nine Featured Articles – Knowledge (XXG)'s highest class – to his credit), and though of course they can be improved, discretion is advisable in making changes to them. I hope these points are helpful. Good wishes, 2437:

leadership" that is incompatible with neutrality, nor is it "unencyclopaedic". If you look at the English WP articles on the UKIP leadership elections last year, it is a plain and simple description of what actually happened, and has been accepted by editors of those articles. In no way is the phrase derogatory or even critical. Lastly, it is quite normal to capitalize "Independent" when discussing politics. I look forward to hearing more about the problem(s) you have with my edits.

1997:

381; Mish 2003, p. 852), either is acceptable. However, The Associated Press Stylebook gives implicit examples in which the "and" is omitted (Goldstein 1998, p. 145). So the fact of the matter is that different sources use different conventions, with some sources even being internally inconsistent. For example, Conway and Guy (1996) list the "(and)" as optional on p. 15, while writing out "one hundred and sixty-three" on p. 25.

1604:"The alterations I made were not "americanisms" but on the contrary were standard English. Before I saw it, the article wasn't bad but had quite a few awkward, periphrastic phrases that were crying out to be replaced with plain simple language. Also, there were many double-spaced sentences (against Knowledge (XXG) policy). Thanks to your vandalism, I'll now have to spend the best part of an evening trying to sort it out. 2067: 5580: 5380: 5085: 4887: 4607: 4043: 3196: 2982: 2185: 5545: 99: 1477: 1281: 36: 5175: 1961:

English use 'and'" to be difficult to support. My background is mathematics where I have read a lot of (American English) textbooks; these employ formal writing rather than slang and omit the "and". Do you know of a way to actually quantify usage in Knowledge (XXG) or elsewhere? Ideally, the quantification would separately tally British vs. American usage.

5214: 4490: 4249:

will forgive the phrase, not rocket science. Initial capital letters are used in order to distinguish a word from its uncapitalized form, and therefore a reader always slows up, even momentarily, when encountering one (in order to work out what the capitalization is being used to convey). This applies even in the case of initial capitals in e.g. "Cite web".

5470: 5307: 5232: 1215: 1095: 916: 3531:. If you make a change to an article (B) that is then reverted by another editor (R) you then must open a discussion (D) on the Talk page if you wish to pursue the changes further. I see that others have already reminded you of this above. If you have any edits that you feel are important to the article, please raise them on the Talk page there. -- 5633:) the more the subject of an article relates only to - for example - a given large city, the more obvious will be the meaning of the linked term. If asked I would say that the value of links lies in explanation to the reader, and that therefore they ought to be restricted as far as possible to items obscure and matters technical. 1641:

thanks all the same. I shan't bother pointing out the policy to which I referred, because you're such a rude, ungrateful ignoramus. Still, never mind - in time others will make the changes I attempted to make, so you'd better guard 'your' article 'well'. Do share all this with anyone you care to - I have nothing to hide. Bye.

2257:

You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

5601:, describing it as "pointless". Even though the article describes a community and culture only to be found there. Such links seem to be something you clean up with some zeal - and when they infest an article I've done so too - but please reconsider what is "pointless" in context before doing so. Best wishes, 4240:

a) I contend that it's nothing to do with WP:CITEVAR, which does not refer to the matters you raise above. In the matter of "consensus" mentioned there, if you wished to extend the CITEVAR policy to such matters, you might well consider that in a vast number of articles there is (as yet) no consensus

1996:

While some authors prefer to include "and" between various parts of a number name, in this work, "and"s are omitted. For example, the number 101 is called "one hundred one" rather than "one hundred and one." According to most definitive sources (Schildberger 2001; The Chicago Manual of Style 2003, p.

1640:

I'm not lying. I'm not attempting to hide Knowledge (XXG) communications - unlike you. You seem to have an obsession with making ludicrous accusations against others. I have a long-established history of making nothing but constructive changes, and I will continue making them on any article I please,

199:

The project main page has been pruned to be cleaner, and much of the support material has been transferred to dedicated pages. New usefull banners and templates have been created, and shortcuts to the new pages that also include a side bar navigator and a brand new easily edited To Do list.

5033:

I have been keeping "they" for teams, because they are groups of people. Clubs, however, are corporate bodies and ought to be referred to in the singular; it is not usually a problem to distinguish the two in Knowledge (XXG) articles. As for the definite article with 'Serie', I understated my case -

4252:

c) Given that my edits are designed to improve every aspect of an article where I find improvement possible, indifferent to what the aspect might be, it's scarely surprising if different type of change come to be "bundled" with others. However, perhaps that point was already obvious, in which case I

1599:

There's no ban on editing even where a "consensus" has occurred. And my acusation was quite right - you didn't attempt to consult me, you just reverted wholesale when what you obviously think of as 'your' precious article got changed. Aw, diddums! And you're so insecure that you even reverted what I

4829:

shifted two Sidebars from the lead to the very bottom of the article. I'm not a fan of sidebars myself in most cases, and if you wish to delete them I would not oppose, but when used they are generally expected to be in the lead. I would say that generally a sidebar could be replaced by a navbox at

4248:

to do with is making cites easily readable - "an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit" (WP:CITEVAR). The unjustifiable presence of capital letters and the unjustifiable absence of spaces, or use of many spaces, all reduce the readability of cites. This is, if you

1623:

Please think very, very carefully before lying again, please think very carefully before using personal attacks again, and please think very carefully before making up policies that simply don't exist. Your lies are transparent for all to see. If you think you need to spend the best of an evening

484:

Please be careful when performing articles moves and check if anyone seems to be in the middle of doing the same thing. If he; she, or they are, stop and have a chat about it. Otherwise you may be unintentionally duplicating or reverting each other's work. This is particularly important if an

4413:

Thanks for the message. I'm pleased that you appreciate my edits! I'm certain that I didn't make any alterations to the manner in which page numbers are cited - but I completely agree with what you say, the format you have changed them to is the right one. (I believe there is even something in the

4306:

for it. If you believe that capitalized versions are better, or that versions with embedded spaces are better not only in a specific article but everywhere for the reasons you list above, please take that up on the Talk page of the guideline or policy and try to get consensus there. Failing that,

2905:

Can you reconsider your reversion of my deletion of the duplicate "the" on this page that you did a short time ago? It's a misconception that it's grammatically correct to have two consecutive appearances of the word "the" when it's part of a title that would otherwise be preceded by the definite

2598:

British person here, experience has shown me that "First World War" is now an anachronism that's falling out of use. No young people say "it's twenty-five to seven" (as opposed to "six thirty five"), nobody bobs apples at Halloween, frogs "ribbet" and Father Christmas is being replaced by Santa. I

2416:

to articles. Once we've linked the general election once we don't need to do it again, and Independent (with a capital) is wrong, since it is not a political party. Hope this helps. I suggest if you want to make major changes to the article that you engage in discussion on the talk page first, and

2256:

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

2042:

Having "slang" as the explanation for Wolfram MathWorld and AP is too hard for me to swallow but fortunately your argument does not rest on that description. It appears that you care about the "and" more than I, so I will leave it your way. It has been a pleasure discussing this with you – happy

4437:

I'm almost done copyediting this very long article in preparation for an FA nomination. I was editing the Sport section when you edit-conflicted with me by editing the entire article. Although I was able to resolve the conflict, please edit by section; I'm stepping back from the article until it

4397:

While I agree with most of your edits for concision (thanks for those), please express page numbers like 23 to 24 as 23–24 and not 23–4. While this latter was convention many decades back, historians (not amateurs, but academics) now generally write out the entire page number for clarity. Thanks

3775:

You are being your own worst enemy there and not actually discussing the things you want to change. Instead it’s all going downhill and your comments are goading the others. If you want to turn it round to be positive, pick out three of your strongest points and say “xxx should be changed to yyy

3671:

article are valuable. That you fail to recognise this is unfortunate for the project; but in time all the article material will be improved, if not by me then by someone else. In the meantime, having no aim in mind but the improvement of articles, I will continue to edit as I see fit. Good day.

559:

Hi, I've reverted your edit on the above item re: his editorship of the Crossman Diaries. The Diaries are listed on Amazon and other bookselling sources as being edited by him, I talked about them with Howard not long after he had edited the things and several obituaries mention his editorship,

474:

is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference. If you are uploadiing an image, be sure it has a correct FUR, and that you have preferably

180:

A war almost broke out over citation formats, but a mature approach from Worcs project members prevented any physical injury. There, are only three basic rules for citations: 1. All articles must have them. 2. Consitency of format throughout an articles. 3. Changes to the format

1960:

I read Knowledge (XXG) and The New York Times all the time and I would have noticed if "and" had appeared in numbers (other than to separate dollars and cents, etc.) because such usage would sound wrong to me … so I am finding the statement that "99% of WP articles (and other text) in American

1936:

I think you'll find that 99% of WP articles (and other text) in American English use "and" in numbers where there is an effort being made to write in good language, rather than in slang. On a racecourse, or on a trading floor, I'm sure you could find "and" omitted all the time - but this is an

2781:

In the case of this article, yuou made multiple small edits throughout, some of which were improvements, but most of which were not. I'm not going to work my way through your changes and pick and choose the ones which improved the article. Instead, please re-do the edits, section-by-section.

3484:

Hello. I think perhaps it would be helpful to offer a few pointers. I don't know if you are a native speaker of BrE or even if English is your first language, but your changes contained solecisms, such as changing "first, secondly" (traditional BrE form) to "firstly, secondly", and the plain

4845:

Hi CMD, thanks very much for coming over. I honestly didn't realise that they were sidebars and not more navboxes! Of course you are right about the display conventions, and I see that the conventional way would be better; if you give me ten minutes or so I'll put them back where they were!

3593:

I'm a native speaker of BrE, not that it's any business of yours. "Unknown" and "unbeknownst" are different words with different usages. There was nothing incorrect about my usage. "Unbeknownst" is more formal, and is used to refer to lack of awareness of a particular fact. See for example

2436:

doesn't merit being wikilinked - despite the likelihood that thousands of English-speaking people have never heard of the place. Had you mentioned even one example, I might have understood what you're attempting to do. Moreover, there is nothing about the phrase "her refusal to take up the

3927:

According to his biography written by his son Flávio, Bolsonaro "was candidate for councillor because it happened to be the only option he had in the moment to avoid persecution by some superiors. His entry into politics happened by chance, for his desire was to continue in his military

2994:

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.

3208:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2946:

English, as must be used in the English Knowledge (XXG) (whether an article be written in formal American English, formal British English, etc.). I'm sympathetic to your overall project - I am, myself, an editor mostly focused on article revision rather than article creation - but

2568:

Hi. The problem with using websites, especially from large organizations, for this kind of purpose is that they're (naturally) aimed at an international audience. A British newspaper, or a British schoolteacher in the classroom, or any British person in everyday conversation would

4999:

Because that is, by far, the usual way in which speakers of English refer to the Italian leagues. See, as a random example I just picked, Sampdoria ("..has been contested in Serie A for most of its history", "For about thirty years the Genoese played constantly in Serie A").

2804:

The IP editor was not me. I never edit whilst logged-out. Your cavalier approach to accusing fellow editors and your failure to cite even a single example of "most of which were not" lead me to take your comments with a complete absence of seriousness. Oh, and please review

171:

In for a shake up is an accumulation of nearly 50,000 totally unsourced articles that may end up on the cutting room floor after a period of grace. As a project, we can help by taking a look at those BLP in the county and doing what we can before the axe falls.

2909:

I agree that when there is another word or phrase, usually an adjective, it's fine to place "the" before the adjective. So an alternative, if you prefer, is to recast the sentence as you did in your edit summary, such as, "In 1977, McNichol appeared in the TV special the

5034:

I have never heard, or read, anyone whose first language is English refer to, e.g., "the Serie A", only to "Serie A". It is nothing like 50/50; it is not a matter of controversy except in sources that have been translated from another language. Remember, too, we have

1624:

trying to sort it out, perhaps you should think of something else better to do with your time, your "help", accusations and lies are really not needed. If the quality of your posts here and at my talkpage are anything to go by, you're doing more damage than good.

2161:

Exactly you have reverted once, but the point is to notify an editor who may not know that Troubles related articles are under such an ArbCom decision unlike ordinary articles, which are typically limited to 3RR. The notification is for your own benefit, not mine.

270:. It should be referred to often, and will be your main stop for most maintenance tasks. We recommend keeping the page on your watchlist. Most project pages now have brand new side bar for easy navigation. (Thanks, GyroMagician). Priority Articles== The 4798:

I disagree though it does depend on semantics a little. But this is the most trivial dispute I've had in a while so I'll leave it. I would appreciate it in future if you don't change BBC Sport from 'work' to 'publisher' when it is the existing format though per

3584:"I don't know if you are a native speaker of BrE or even if English is your first language, but your changes contained solecisms, such as changing "first, secondly" (traditional BrE form) to "firstly, secondly", and the plain "unknown" to "unbeknownst" which 225:

and nominate yourself. Nobody needs to have a high edit count or to be an expert in all areas, but being active, having a reasonable overview of the workings of the Knowledge (XXG), and a decent level of maturity, are expected minima. The process is

2553:

If both terms are used in the UK, then should we not use Wiki's preferred usage (i.e., the article title, which is World War I)? We only use a Brit Eng term if it's clearly the predominant one. You may be right, but I'd like to see some confirmation.

2197:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3489:

labels as "uneducated or facetious" usage. Why you think "1972–1982" is an "abbreviation" is a mystery. As to your assertion that the Manual of Style forbids piping of the prenominal "Sir" I wonder where you got that idea. It is standard usage: see

4481:

I got the edit-conflict notice when I tried to save my edits after you started editing the whole article. It's very long (62 kB, 10,000 words), so it helps to edit by section; that way, another editor can edit another section at the same time.

2937:

Thanks for coming over, Ira. I can assure you that it's not "a misconception that it's grammatically correct to have two consecutive appearances of the word 'the' ... " in the circumstances under discussion. To say something "sounds silly" is

3644:

You're completely wrong. I seriously doubt your familiarity with BrE. Moreover, since it took my observation skills to correct a substantial factual error—which you had apparently not seen, despite having recently edited the article—in

4241:

on the capitalization and spacing of cites. In passing, though, I have noticed several articles where my spacing idea has been adopted by others - which I have done nothing to promote; I have quite enough to do without such vanity.

2959:

Moreover, you've made an error here in your citation of the alternative version of the sentence that I gave in the edit summary! Still, I'm perfectly willing to edit the article to the correct alternative version. Have a good day.

429: 423: 4222:. I would have reverted, but you bundled them with other fixes such as italics and punctuation fixes, and I didn’t want to undo those as well. Just so you know, going forward. Thanks for your edits to improve the encyclopedia. 4754:

the publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal,

2320:

Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited.

151:

Kudpung has booked his flight from Asia and will be back in Malvern from 1 April for a month, and looks forward to meeting up with as many Wikipedians as possible, especially those who work on the Worcs project.

2382:

supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you!

220:

Our only admin has resigned his tools. It would be great to have an active admin as a member of the project. If you think you would be able to cope with all the responsibility adminship involves, checkout

5425: 5130: 4930: 4650: 4086: 3236: 3022: 2225: 5014:

I think it's 50/50. A few sources use "the", others don't. I'd rather keep it as it seems that the league itself uses it. Also, we should keep the collective "they" for teams, as is common practise in UK English.

1580: 495: 5628:

links there per OVERLINK, my action attracted no attention. Excepting common terms from the OVERLINK guideline and wikilinking them, citing "context", seems to me difficult to justify, because (here considering

3746:

Thanks for dropping by. I made a start on that a short while before you posted, although given that I received very little in the way of reasonable reply via the edit summaries, I can't say that I live in hope.

1540:. 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 3358:

phrasing / punctuation". "Improved" carries the implication that whoever wrote the old prose was an uneducated dingbat; whether it is or not, just improve the encyclopedia without rubbing people's noses in it.

1583:

if you'd like to see where consensus for the current "vandalised" version came from. Never post on my talk page again, and if I find you inappropriately editing against consensus, I will seek further action.

4285:

has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Knowledge (XXG) editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the

406: 389: 500: 414: 3374:

Thanks for that contribution—but given that all edits are changes, and that edit summaries are supposed to give some information about the edit, I will carry on exactly as I have in the past. Good day.

505: 187:

might not be such a good idea while chunks of text and/or their references are being copied and pasted around related articles in the county. In any case, let's always discuss what we have in mind

5409:. 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 5114:. 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 4914:. 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 4634:. 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 4070:. 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 3220:. 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 3006:. 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 2209:. 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 2137:. Please revert your edit and discuss it on the talk page per the above restriction, otherwise you are edit-warring over an edit that has been flagged as contentious by the initial reverting of it. 135:

The Worcestershire project mainly concerns settlements. It's generally agreed that the immediate priority now is to improve the articles that shiould be the flagships of the project, namely

2526:, can you please show me an unambiguous reference that confirms your assertion: "changed it because the Brit Eng term is 'First World War'. so presumably ought to be used in a Brit Eng article?)" 2451:

The problem with this article is that it has suffered from too much nitpicking from people who wish to argue she wasn't the proper leader because she didn't formally accept the office, etc, etc (

2902:

and trying to eliminate the consecutive uses of the word "the." (Many are simple typos, often in redirects. When they're in references with errors, I'm marking them with the 'sic' template.)

2364: 2276: 5394: 5099: 4900: 4620: 4302:

and refrain from making such changes in the future. If you believe they improve the article, please discuss on the Talk page of the article first as MOS:VAR recommends, and attempt to gain

4056: 55: 2573:

use the phrase "World War One". Please trust me on this! I didn't myself realise how many WP articles use "First World War" until another editor pointed it out to me. I think section 3 of

715: 4467:

Hi, many thanks for coming over. I was not notified of any edit conflict, but I'm sorry for inadvertently causing difficulty. I'll look at the article again in a few days! Best wishes,

711: 2906:

article. Informal grammar rules are much more forgiving for spoken than written English, but say the sentence that you changed out loud, and you'll see what I mean - it sounds silly.

3545:"If you make a change to an article (B) that is then reverted by another editor (R) you then must open a discussion (D) on the Talk page if you wish to pursue the changes further." 3558:

reverted in such a way as not to alert me of the reversion. Hardly the behaviour of an editor who is concerned about the niceties of communication. Or perhaps you're just biased.

2785:

Further, please do not edit while logged-out, as you did on this article just now. It can be construed as attempting to avoid scrutiny of your edits, which is a violation of the

2408:

I've explained this in my edit summary, but I'll do so again just in case you miss it. The use of phrases such as "Following her refusal to take up the leadership" do not reflect

2023: 3728:

Please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes. It's clear that the revert cycle isn't going to work, so why not just lay out your arguments clearly for all to see? -

1341: 1053: 123:

A lot of work has already been done since the Worcs project was started, including the recent tagging of the talk pages of all the articles about people connected with

4776:

is not a 'work' (read the article); if it were, the article title would be italicized. This is not a new thing; many articles have citations where the source is a publisher (

4291:

b) "Unjustifiable" to you, maybe; though obviously not to the editor whose edit you altered, and to others. What you consider obvious and not rocket science, has no basis in

1337: 1049: 2360: 2280: 577:

Hi Sitush, I have changed your revert to something closer to the facts, while recognising that you have a point. The explanation is on the Anthony Howard 'talk' page.

1921:

article is written in American English – well, I didn't go over it with a fine-tooth comb, but I see "color" – perhaps we should drop the "and". What do you think?

4169: 2417:

attempt to gain some consensus. This woman is a controversial figure, and therefore it is of paramount importance that we discuss any major changes to her article.

1173: 397: 328:

The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.

3798:, especially seen in conjunction with the nonsense they posted above about "standard usage", leaves no room for any attempt to compromise, as far as I can see. 2283:

to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to

1169: 662: 2001:

That makes it sound like some will say that either way goes and some will say that "and" must be omitted but there aren't any who say that "and" is required.

3923:

Thanks for improving the paragraph I wrote. Could you also check out the quote itself? The original is actually in portuguese, so it is ok to fix it as well.

3639:"A couple of your ideas are unobjectionable, though not improvements, but the net effect of your alterations would be to make the prose of the article worse." 3404:

LOL. Some of us are here to build—and improve—an encyclopaedia. Just concentrate on that rather than on encouraging someone else's passive-aggressive threat.

3851: 3117: 2710: 2665: 2492: 1883: 1790: 1741: 1696: 1445: 1400: 1351: 1183: 1063: 1010: 884: 831: 778: 725: 672: 658: 619: 333: 188: 471: 3776:

because .....” people will then be able to discuss the actual points, rather than just start trading insults, which isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. -

3708:

LOL. Thanks for revealing yourself as a troll. I'm glad the evidence of it will remain on this page for everyone to see for many years to come. Good day.

2577:

indicates that owing to national ties, Brit Eng is to be preferred for the Join Hands article, as does the 'EngvarB' mention at the head of the wikitext.

2322: 115:

status. The GA sets a benchmark for the quality to be targeted for other articles in the project, and clearly demonstrated how important teamwork is.

1914: 768: 2356: 2272: 510: 5501:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5338:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5263:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 2133:

Due to template limitations I can't change the automatic use of the article/userspace at the start of it hence your name shows but this is regards to

314: 4181: 3147:

Hello sir, My name is Roy currently writing an article about Goshen land. I am looking for more opinion if you could help me about it. Thankyou sir

764: 3646: 609: 4742:

BBC Sport is the work rather than the website, and thus should be used in the 'work' parameter, rather than 'publisher'. Per the documentation for

2432:

Your edit summary is, again, quite inadequate. I don't think that I introduced a single example of overlinking, whereas you evidently believe that

821: 3613:"As to your assertion that the Manual of Style forbids piping of the prenominal "Sir" I wonder where you got that idea. It is standard usage: see 3464:

That's OK, I've hit the wrong button myself sometimes - in my case usually the 'return' key halfway through typing an edit summary :) best wishes

3055:

I am pretty rubbish at updating tables myself, something I always avoid. I've done my best with the East Midlands constituency, hope it's okay :)

4325:

Again, I contend that the material you are using to support your argument does not refer to the matters under discussion here. I say that having

2530:

A quick Google search seemed to turn up several prominent British usages of World War I (along with First World War and The Great War) including:

2367:. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to 87: 79: 45: 21: 3523:

I agree with Tim riley. I would add that you appear to be an experienced editor, and yet your edits at the Philharmonia article clearly violate

2024:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/23/we-run-towards-the-screams-meet-the-aleppo-rescue-team-that-saved-5-year-old-omran/

605: 817: 322: 86:

You are probably receiving this because you have significantly contributed to one of our pages. If you are not yet a participant in the

3847: 3630:

Piping may very well be used in such a way in those articles (I didn't bother to look) but whoever piped a link in such a way had never seen

3113: 2706: 2661: 2488: 1879: 1786: 1737: 1692: 1441: 1396: 1347: 1179: 1059: 1006: 880: 827: 774: 721: 668: 615: 563:

Should you have meant something else by the word "erroneous" in your edit summary then feel free to undo my reversion and explain more fully

5448: 5153: 4953: 4672: 4108: 3250: 3036: 2239: 1565: 1297: 874: 703: 3837: 452:

The watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.

5498: 5335: 5260: 1316: 4282: 4177: 870: 66: 1289: 4442:, who requested the copyedit). Barring further edit conflicts, I hope to finish the copyedit in the next day or so. All the best, 1000: 3908: 3426: 3397: 3367: 2855: 2617: 1918: 4976:? As far as I see it, it's the same as "Premier League", in the sense that we would not say "The club plays in Premier League". 1869: 5444: 5149: 4949: 4668: 4104: 3246: 3032: 2548: 2235: 1561: 5557: 5418: 5186: 5123: 4923: 4643: 4079: 3229: 3015: 2218: 2123: 2077: 1344:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1176:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1056:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1003:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 996: 877:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 824:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 771:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 718:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 665:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 612:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2703:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2658:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2485:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1876:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1783:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1734:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1689:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1485: 1438:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1393:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1329: 1285: 1041: 4830:

the bottom, but in this case the article already has Philippine and Spanish Empire navboxes which cover the sidebar topics.

4210:

Please do not alter white space and capitalization in citations as you did in the majority of the last dozen edits (such as

3691: 3345: 2593: 90:, now is the time to consider joining - it might help you get some assistance on a page you feel particularly attached to. 5494: 5331: 5256: 4808: 4762: 3167: 2343: 2263: 2119: 5624:

describes something unique to Manhattan, and (naturally) is a heavily patrolled article, but when in 2021 I removed the

4977: 4139: 2600: 2368: 1293: 5620:

in relation to the article in question? I suggest to you that different attitudes to the guideline exist. For example,

3833: 1975:

The Google NGRAM viewer supports your position that including "and" is more popular, for numbers such as 140 and 101.

1552:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

5430: 5135: 4935: 4655: 4091: 3825: 3241: 3027: 2230: 1557: 1509: 1045: 351:

Schools in the county (Particularly susceptible to vandalism - please keep them on your watch lists if possible).

2843:

is fond of saying, why shouldn't we sanction you for systematic edit-warring across the encyclopedia over stuff that

1301: 230:

painless, and is worse than a British army promotion board! Alternatively you can always nominate another user.

3418:

That's why I ignored this message and concentrated on getting a 132nd article passed through GA. Have a nice life.

3279: 2695:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2650:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2477:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1868:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1771:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1726:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1681:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1664: 1629: 1589: 1430:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1381:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1328:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1160:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1040:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

987:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

861:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

808:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

755:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

702:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3963: 2311:

This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

5649:

Yes, I have read and considered that MOS. And yes, you were wrong to remove the internal link on London from the

4539: 3618: 3495: 2019: 1917:, it is a geographical distinction, where using "and" is British and omitting "and" is American. Given that the 1506: 1497: 3103: 2111: 5621: 5526: 5363: 5288: 5200: 4804: 4758: 3171: 2100:: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as 5406: 5111: 4911: 4631: 4067: 3217: 3003: 2206: 263: 4366: 2134: 5482: 5319: 5244: 4865: 4835: 4728: 4009: 3667:

to heart. Edits are either valuable or not; the vast majority of my edits are valuable. All my edits on the

2794: 2559: 1833: 1502: 1481: 1300:

about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting

1238:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1161: 1118:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

939:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

108: 3896: 3841: 3107: 2955:(if not many) cases where two 'the's may perfectly well be placed adjacent to each other in formal English. 2786: 534: 267: 4211: 3668: 2651: 2460: 2422: 1314: 1107: 2899: 2122:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

2115: 1553: 5658: 5606: 4135: 2927: 2836: 2388: 2294: 1772: 1660: 1625: 1585: 650: 2844: 2413: 3608:

Of course it's an abbreviation — it is being used to substitute for an English phrase, "1972 to 1982".

3152: 5569: 4504: 4452: 4403: 3904: 3900: 3824:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3585: 3486: 3424: 3395: 3365: 3090:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2853: 2615: 1270: 1146: 973: 5388: 5093: 4894: 4800: 4757:

As BBC Sport is the website and BBC is the organisation, BBC Sport should be considered the 'work'.

4614: 4219: 4050: 3528: 3204: 2990: 2409: 2193: 2175: 1529: 1520: 1493: 5522: 5474: 5359: 5311: 5284: 5236: 5194: 5058: 5021: 4986: 4719:

disregard this extended blather, have reverted... I am so exhausted I misread you, and the matter

3510: 3329:

about my edit summary. Please re-read the relevant page before saying anything so silly in future.

3275: 3060: 2828: 2696: 1942: 707: 5402: 5107: 4907: 4627: 4063: 3959: 3795: 3631: 3595: 3213: 2999: 2202: 2091: 1659:

Jolly good, hoping to never cross paths again. Good luck with your "policy" on double spaces!!!!

1549: 1533: 5052:

Could you give me an example of when to use "they" and when not? I'm not entirely clear on this.

4861: 4831: 4746: 4724: 4535: 4316: 4227: 3938: 3781: 3733: 3699: 3536: 3454: 3315: 3148: 2790: 2555: 2044: 2002: 1976: 1962: 1938: 1922: 1844: 1829: 1825: 1780: 935:

by modifying 2 ""s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just

278: 136: 4308: 3790:

I'm sorry that it looks like that to you—I thought I made a quite reasonable opening statement.

3326: 3304: 3175: 3099: 2758:

everted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to

756: 539: 240: 236: 5248: 5224: 4710: 4588: 4554: 4381: 4196: 4154: 4024: 3978: 3867: 3761:

A fat lot of good that did—I'd have got more genuine wish to collaborate out of a brick wall.

3310:

Please keep your edit summaries civil, or you may be blocked from editing Knowledge (XXG). --

3294: 3133: 2726: 2681: 2508: 2456: 2418: 2384: 2290: 2084:, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page: 1899: 1806: 1757: 1712: 1607:

Please attempt to think very carefully before doing anything so stupid and thoughtless again.

1461: 1416: 1367: 1305: 1199: 1079: 1026: 900: 847: 794: 741: 688: 635: 5414: 5119: 4919: 4639: 4362: 4303: 4075: 3225: 3011: 2214: 1545: 1537: 1496:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 5654: 5602: 5437: 5142: 4942: 4691: 4662: 4391: 4098: 4005: 3884:

I thought it might be worthwhile attempting to standardise info boxes on UK politics pages.

3622: 3614: 3499: 3491: 2923: 2549:

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/research/military-records/british-soldiers-ww1-service-records.htm

2478: 2048: 2006: 1980: 1966: 1926: 1873: 1489: 1431: 568: 302: 5417:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5410: 5122:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5115: 4922:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4915: 4642:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4635: 4237:

Thanks for coming over. Your appreciation is valued. However, I would like to respond thus:

4078:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4071: 3664: 3524: 3228:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3221: 3014:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3007: 2806: 2743: 2574: 2217:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2210: 2101: 1548:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1541: 222: 184: 164: 5565: 5035: 4495: 4443: 4399: 3419: 3390: 3360: 3179: 2848: 2610: 2341:. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. 1848: 1390: 1266: 1262: 1219: 1142: 1099: 969: 920: 760: 597: 4723:

was correct. Homeschooling threatens to turn me into zombie, please excuse. Peace out

4292: 2771: 809: 485:

article is currently under a GA review. image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.

127:, keeping spam and vandalism at bay, and welcoming new editors on their talk pages. 3844:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 3389:

Okay, if you find yourself staring at an unblock request, don't say you weren't warned.

3110:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1492:

because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the

5514: 5351: 5276: 5053: 5016: 4981: 4860:

Not problem, although perhaps a script tweak needed if these edits are semi-automated.

4569: 4173: 4127: 3791: 3555: 3505: 3056: 2543: 370:: These all need the Worcs project banner adding to their talk pages, and assessing. 282: 160:

Two major debates are raging on the 'pedia and we have been cautiously taking part.

140: 124: 343:

The recommended priority by kind is for creation/improvement of complete articles is:

5668: 5634: 5625: 5323: 5299: 5039: 5001: 4847: 4785: 4468: 4415: 4330: 4312: 4259: 4223: 3933: 3858: