User talk:Perey

Here are some links I find useful

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see you have recently contributed to the article cricket. May I invite you to a new WikiProject to improve the quality and depth of cricket articles on Wikipedia. It's located on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm taking the approach of let's see who's interested and let's see which bits we want to improve/expand to begin with. Once we know that, hopefully we can work together to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage. jguk 16:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. Furthermore it doesn't say anywhere on the Duplicate articles page that the merge template is exclusively for this use. I've seen it used very successfully to incorporate related smaller articles under a single umbrella topic. While I will acknowledge that the Polgara the Sorceress article happens to be fleshed out enough to stand alone (if stand alone it must, even if it would make more sense to put it with the other Eddings characters) it is the only exception among the various Belgariad/Malloreon character articles. Really they should all be put in the Belgariad under a Characters heading with subsets and referred to in the Malloreon article.
23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

LOL--I didn't disagree about Polgara. I merely disagreed about the use of the merge template.
Ø 15:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez...I was going to remove that too before I realized it had some germanic roots and decided to look in the history. That gave me quite a laugh. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Thanks for fixing my botch! I can't understand what I did there. Scratching my head... --Ligulem 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: see Talk:The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

I filled out the template for your MedCab Case: Shia Islam. I removed the anonymous ip addresses as parties as there would be no way to mediate a discussion with an anonymous party. If you wish to proceed with this informal and voluntary mediation I will require the consent of yourself and atleast one other party. To consent to my mediation of your case, please edit the case page discussion section, state you wish to proceed with Alan.ca as your mediator and sign your name. Alan.ca 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namez 2007 is just the latest ever-morphing alias of the "Iraqi dinar" vandal (see Talk:Rafida for probably more than you want to know). He's certainly not going to discuss anything with you, if he keeps to his behavior with respect to Rafida... AnonMoos 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Perth Meetup v t e Next: 15 December 2024 (watch) Last: 2 November 2024
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

• You are invited to a meetup of Western Australian Wikipedians on the 19th August 2007 in the tearooms of Tranby House. Please sign on the Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 if you are able to attend. you recieved this message as your account has been active during May, June 2007 and your user page is listed in the Category:Wikipedians in Western Australia Gnangarra 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 is next sunday 19th August, if you haven't already please sign on the meetup page if your coming, if your still unsure indicate anyway so I can confirm numbers with the venue thankyou Gnangarra 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Medieval Total War.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tabulating that. I always thought that was getting a bit of an exhaustive list, of kinda "what is not QED in other languages". Your treatment is good, there. I still think it somewhat bizarre to define something by what it is not, but that will have to wait, yours is a good first step.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more puzzles for you, and very much thanks for AGF Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was worried too that I had cut it back too much. More at my talk page. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the jpg image I uploaded before? Why was it replaced with a png version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillaja (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Epub logo color.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Quibik (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Perey,

I really like your work on File:Regular_Star_Polygons-en.svg, especially the diagonal lines linking those derived from the same primitive, so hope you don't mind that I updated it as on the right:

1. Swapping rows and columns lets me fit more n along with Schläfli symbols without it being too tall.
2. Colour-coding polygons consisting of multiple "parts".
3. Shading the background of those derived from the same primitive.
4. Adding a legend to avoid cluttering up the main graphic and filling up the empty space.

I also think that ordering them in increasing q shows highlights the more interesting star polygons — those with higher q look very similar, just sharper corners.

I've reduced n to 12 as I think the stars appear more and more similar as n increases. 12 is also a multiple of 2, 3 and 4. Lastly, I won't need as many different background shades.

Please let me know if you've any thoughts on this.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: It would be rather mean of me to complain about your version, since (a) all I did was port an existing image to SVG (and take the opportunity to add a few more convex polygons), and (b) you do such fantastic work! (No false flattery—I found myself browsing through your user page before replying here, and periodically going "hey, it's that image" or "hey, I wish I'd seen that image before".) Your image manages to give both more information and more clarity, and I wholeheartedly approve. -- Perey (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very kind words, Perey. It's feedback like yours that maintains my interest in contributing to Wikipedia :-) I'm also impressed with the work you've done on Commons, thanks especially for fixing "Crises" on File:Moon_names.svg cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bush moa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southland. 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) 08:55, 12 July 2015 (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 ISO 2047 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:23, 22 July 2015 (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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lvovich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lev. 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) 12:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean | this revert , the article is called "Dhole" and what I removed were areas where they were being labeled as "Bholes". As the title calls them "DHOLES" , the "Bhole" addition appeared incorrect. That's why it was removed. KoshVorlon} 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your edit summary for the (re)creation of Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20120203 (Omnipresent) has come up in the discussion of a set of related redirects for deletion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 10#Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20090709. If you have time to participate in that discussion, please contribute any additional info you may have on the history / thought behind these redirects. Thanks, Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would whole-heartedly support your proposal of a rewrite for Sutton's personal page, not least because he started it himself, wrote the majority of the content and has been shown to be a deceitful, and unreliable, out to promote his own interests, at the cost of research integrity and the value of academic literature. His defamation of good people here trying to create and maintain a reliable resource of substantiated truth is an anathema to him, but he is too egocentric and illogical to recognise his mistakes. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the page be wiped (I was pleased to see someone else propose it for deletion previously, and it was discussed, but unfortunately, that panel took his publications at face value), and if it needs rewriting, that not a single word is added to it, without double checking the literature behind it; and that means going beyond the references to Sutton's work, and looking at his references, and if necessary, their references as well. Every time this has been done to check one of his claims, it proves to be false.

Further reading

1. Sutton's papers under investigation:
• 2014 https://pubpeer.com/publications/AF2CB1A12614BE131AED5AAF479AE0
• 2015 https://pubpeer.com/publications/C3BFC392DF4B02676F80CF149857DB
• 2018 https://pubpeer.com/publications/38BCF0A8193B2086C57E9BAC7660DD
2. Sutton Woo https://mrsuttonntu.wordpress.com/
3. Natural Ecologies https://historiesofecology.blogspot.co.uk/
4. Patrick Matthew Project https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/

Jfderry (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2018 (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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did you make this edit to Scorpio (astrology). I often find myself dealing with these characters and would like to know more about how to handle them.

First, how did you figure out which invisible character(s_ to use.

Second, how did you get the character(s) into Wikipedia? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: Nothing fancy, I'm afraid. I just copied the character from the first sentence of the article and pasted it into the hatnote!

I'm sure that some mobile user with an emoji keyboard would be able to enter them more directly, but I'm just typing at a regular computer. I can't speak for every browser, but Firefox treats the symbol+invisible character combo as a unit and lets me copy and paste it without any trouble.

The invisible characters to use are U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15 for text presentation, and U+FE0F VARIATION SELECTOR-16 for emoji presentation. As you know, the template {{Emoji presentation}} can be used to add these in a way that's at least somewhat clear to other editors. So if you're ever stuck trying to put them somewhere that the template can't go, you can use the template somewhere safe and then copy and paste the result.

Actually, there's a better way, one that I perhaps should have used in the edit you mention. I've belatedly remembered that numeric character references can also be used to add these invisible characters. For instance, ♏︎ will produce "♏︎". They do look messy, though, as evidenced by at least one occasion when an editor went through and "cleaned them up"…

Oh, and to answer your question about knowing the characters to use: I learnt about them from Wikipedia, of course! And then I made {{Emoji presentation}} so that I wouldn't have to remember them. ;-) -- Perey (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd be tempted to use ♏︎ so that when some bot goes around cleaning up invisible characters, quite a few editors will be able to recognize that something happened, even if they don't understand it at first. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perey, could you how me the section in the WP:MOS that sustains your edit? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I didn't base that edit on the MOS, but on standard English usage. Quotation marks are used for things that are quoted, whether from a specific person or text, or from common usage. The examples in this edit are of the common usage kind:

• Technically incorrect usage that is nonetheless common, namely calling the achenes on a strawberry "seeds"
• Unusual, informal or dialectal usage, namely calling the capitulum of a dandelion a "clock"

These are what I was referring to as '"so-called" usages' in my edit comment (a so-called seed, a so-called clock).

If you really want something from the MOS, browse through MOS:ITAL. I think you'll agree that none of its categories ("Emphasis", "Titles", "Words as words", and "Scientific names" at the time of writing) cover this kind of usage. -- Perey (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought ("I didn't base that edit on the MOS"). Kindly revert your edit, as there is no such thing as "Quotation marks are used for ... or from common usage". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: What? No. Why would I do that? Just because a feature of English usage isn't in the MOS, doesn't mean I can't apply it. And you asserting that "there is no such thing" does not make it vanish. Consider:

• Quotation marks in English § Signalling unusual usage and § Nonstandard usage
• Scare quotes ("…signal that they are using it in [a] referential, or otherwise non-standard sense. …they may imply … belief that the words are misused…") I would not describe the usage in this case as "scare quotes", because to me that term suggests a disdain for the usage being quoted, but the result is the same: Quotation marks are placed around the term that the author is attributing to a (perhaps non-specific) third party rather than employing in their own writing.
• Grammarly, When to put quotation marks around a single word
• Grammar.com, Chapter 12 - Quotation Marks
• Stephen Wilbers, When to use – and not to use – quotation marks
• et cetera, et cetera

If you want it reverted, you may start the "Discuss" phase of the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle on the article's talk page at your leisure. -- Perey (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Perey, there is so much of this on the project that an individual case does not warrant making a big deal out of, so I would just like to hear another opinion and have asked a colleague for one. I tagged you, so you will have received a notification. Thanks for the links. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rui Gabriel Correia indeed asked me to come weigh in as a speaker of another English dialect. My input is that yes, it is entirely normal and standard, when you have to make reference to a popular but technically incorrect term for something (such as achenes being commonly referred to as "seeds"), to mark that term with quotation marks. And no, just because the MOS doesn't already include a clause for that usage doesn't mean the usage is impermissible — because the MOS also doesn't contain any clause stating that we have a sitewide consensus to vary from standard usage in that context, such as by marking the word in italics instead of quotation marks, either. We don't necessarily need the MOS to list every last possible thing that happens in standard writing style — for example, just because the MOS doesn't comprehensively summarize every last feature of basic English grammar doesn't mean we don't have to write grammatically on here — and, for that matter, things can be added to the MOS if new points come up that people hadn't previously thought to add. So no, just because the MOS doesn't already make a special point of saying "use quotation marks in contexts where quotation marks are standard usage in English writing" doesn't mean we don't do that. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bearcat I will henceforth analyse new occurrences that I come across from a less rigid position. One thing that I have come to accept is that a number of grammar fundamentals have over time become subjective. A case in point would be that/ which, which are now by and large used indiscriminately as synonyms. But, whenever I feel the wrong option has been used and change it, I have both UK ans US users saying the change has made it US/ UK usage respectively. So now I mostly leave it. Perey, happy trails. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia and Bearcat: Thank you both for your input. And RGC: as a fellow nitpicker of grammar, please don't let this disagreement over a usage point discourage you from fighting the good fight. Even though language is always evolving, there's always a need for writing which that conforms to accepted usage! -- Perey (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, International Sports Press Association, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Perey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:International Sports Press Association, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Perey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "International Sports Press Association".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]