User talk:Ibadibam

Hello, Ibadibam, and welcome to Wiki . Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 04:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for being a member of WP:CHICAGO. If you would like to remain as an active member please note so here, otherwise mark yourself inactive or semi-active. Thank you. If active, put "Active in project since MM/YYYY. Active as of MM/YYYY" where MM and YYYY represent approximate time you joined the project. Make sure anyone you think is active in the project has signed up on the project page and the last time you confirmed your activity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive remarks - I sing with West Towns! --DAW0001 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting "History of the world" from "BC" and "AD" back to "BCE" and "CE." I think the latter are more appropriate to our times and to the subject.

I did not feel, however, that I could afford to undertake the effort that you have invested. I'm deeply grateful. Nihil novi (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nie ma za co, Nn :) I also messaged the user who made the edits, but since he hasn't set up his page, it remains to be seen whether he notices. Ibadibam (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandwich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grilled cheese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a false positive. Checking it out. Ibadibam (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a complete jerk, but people going on about little things like this long after they've happened is a much bigger problem than the actual thing could ever be. There is no principle there.

The only thing I am or was angry about is that, and multiple editors treating me like a vandal because one did. I don't particularly care about the block, even though that's the one thing anyone would care about me caring about. See how stupid even that sounds?

Thanks for the input, by the way. Wish those other guys would approach the subject in a similar way, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Despatche (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ibadibam! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link at Despatche's talk page! I always forget where that guideline is. :)--Atlan (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it helped Ibadibam (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information about The Country Bears mistake. I see that although the edit was wrong, it was not meant to be vandalism. I admit that after doing vandalism reversion for several months with only a few very minor problems that were promptly taken care of, I have been mistaken, more like being fooled actually, three times recently. It is good to be reminded that something that may look like vandalism at first glance, and in fact may have been vandalism in another case, may just be wrong or unintentionally disruptive. I have seen a few such instances recently and adjusted my notice accordingly. In this case, I missed it. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from using automated warnings on good faith editors and their edits. It is extremely poor form. Thank you. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, I'm sorry for WP:DTRing you. Please also assume that the warning was in good faith (I will point out that I used a GF-level template). I also noted that your account has been active for less than two weeks, and I assumed you're still finding your way around wiki policy. I'm just trying to help you be a better editor. Ibadibam (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case then kindly remove your disrespectful template warning from my talk page. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to maintain your user talk page per the relevant guidelines. But please see the essay I linked to above, which encourages you to "take the template as a reminder and/or constructive criticism and move on." Ibadibam (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite WP:AGF your warning comes across as unnecessarily robotically negative. Do avoid usage of templates in the future with registered users. Particularly ones that have even relatively minor histories of good faith editing. The project is losing editors left and right and such idiotic usage of templates is not going to help with that issue. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching out for my user page. I have had enough experience to expect some vandalism occasionally but it is always appreciated when a fellow editor promptly takes care of it. I have never seen someone (a vandal) put a bogus commendation on their talk page. It is even stranger since the previous vandalism was over a month ago. Too bad the person does not use his or her time and talent more productively. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awesome attitude to take! I've got to remember that: instead of "I wish this person weren't on Wikipedia," say, "I wish this person were doing something better with their life and fulfilling their great potential as a human being." Anyway, yeah, I was still watching your page from our last conversation. This definitely is a more creative vandal than I've seen before. So how was your monkey hunt? Ibadibam (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not catch any but they are rather fast. Donner60 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect with regard to immigrate and emigrate. The "point of view from which they are used" is entirely subjective. The fact remains that one immigrates to a country in which they have emigrated from. Immigrate to; emigrate from. Always.

I will not attempt to revert your reversions, as a quick Google search shows hundreds of mistakes on this site. It seems the vast majority, you included, are misinformed. My effort would be in vain if I had to deal with people like you for every correction I make.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmigrateEmigrate (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 August 2013‎

Thanks for your message. Did you get a chance to read the articles I posted on your talk page? That should provide some clarification. (If you have some authoritative sources for the rule you're using, I'd be interested to read them. I've really never heard of it until now.)

Immigration is the act of arriving, while emigration is the act of leaving. In general, "immigrate" is analogous to "come" and "emigrate" is analogous to "go," in the sense that one may "come from" or "come to" and "go from" or "go to." The construction used depends on the speaker's perspective. I'm in the United States, so if I'm talking about an American originally from Mongolia I would say they immigrated from Mongolia to the U.S. Someone in Mongolia would say that person emigrated to the U.S. from Mongolia. Both verbs have sufficient valency to allow both prepositional phrases specifying destination and origin.

It also makes more sense in cases like "Most Soviets allowed to leave during this time period were ethnic Jews permitted to emigrate to Israel [...]". The Soviet Union had no influence on immigration to Israel — they couldn't control who entered another country — but they did control emigration from the USSR, including emigration from the USSR to Israel. Ibadibam (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Accidents of Style: Good Advice on How Not to Write Badly"

By Charles Harrington Elster

http://books.google.com/books?id=FgKFrucChzMC&lpg=PA175&ots=hGT3Y-weD0&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false ImmigrateEmigrate (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That seems like a good rule of thumb, but if you look at the first link I sent you it presents an exception to the rule: "The Polenskis do not live here any more. They emigrated to Canada in 1943." From the speaker's perspective, the Polenskis are emigrants. In Canada, they would be called immigrants. It works like "here" and "there" or "come" and "go." Ibadibam (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that to say, it seems like there are multiple valid conventions as to the usage of these words, and it might be worth getting a new Manual of Style guideline in place for consistency's sake. Incidentally, the question was raised some time ago at the Wikipedia reference desk without much consensus. The end suggestion was to simply change "immigrated" or "emigrated" to "moved" when the choice is not clear. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is editable content though. You wouldn't cite Wikipedia for anything would you? If there is to be any consistency, then the convention used should be based on the article's neutral perspective of the event(s). If it's a quote, then fine, but for everything else, it should be as I've described. ImmigrateEmigrate (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right that that first link isn't particularly reliable. It is a good indication that the usage of these verbs is not universal, though, and that a hard and fast rule based on prepositions isn't applicable in all cases. Different readers are going to understand the terms differently, and we want to be sensitive to that. Even Elster, in the book you linked to, uses "emigrate ... to" in the sentence, "An emigrant is a person who emigrates from his native country to another country [...]." What are your impressions of the reference desk thread I linked to? Ibadibam (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've misinterpreted Elster's quote. He has it, "emigrates from X ... to Y". X = "his native country", Y = "another country". What I've been claiming has been consistent with what he's written.

As far as the discussion you linked, they seem to be squabbling over the point of view. All of that can easily be resolved by using the (hopefully) neutral point of view of the article. In that case it should consistently be emigrate from; immigrate to. ImmigrateEmigrate (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course X is the place of origin and Y is the destination. That's what "from" and "to" mean, naturally! The point is that you can see him using the verb "emigrate" with the preposition "to," indicating that "emigrate to" is a perfectly acceptable construction, even for him. You could rearrange the sentence and the meaning wouldn't change. Tell me you don't think the following four phrases aren't identical in meaning:

• "A person who emigrates from his native country to another country."
• "A person who emigrates to another country from his native country."
• "A person who immigrates from his native country to another country."
• "A person who immigrates to another country from his native country."

I misspoke when I used the term "point of view" as I didn't mean to suggest an article shouldn't be neutral. I really meant the grammatical point of view — the context of the sentence. The same thing that tells you when to use "this" or "that," "here" or "there," and so forth. Ibadibam (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not one instance in that book in which "emigrate" is immediately followed by the preposition "to". This is the crux of the issue. It explicitly states that "[e]migrate is followed by the preposition 'from'." And that's exactly how you've quoted it. The "to" comes after the "emigrate from" pair. It's not the associative preposition for emigrate. Conversely, the same applies to an "immigrate to" pair being followed by "from."

The only acceptable sentences you've quoted are the first and fourth. Although the other two may sound fine, they are semantically incorrect. ImmigrateEmigrate (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of the second and third, if different from the first and fourth? And since when does the order of prepositional phrases alter the meaning of a clause? Ibadibam (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is irrelevant. I can interpret what you mean because of the context of our discussion, and I can interpret it into something entirely different, but that's not the point. The point is that it is not grammatically correct for "to" to follow "emigrate" or "from" to follow "immigrate".

I don't want to flood you with book citations, so I'm going to flood you with book citations.

The Careful Writer By Theodore M. Bernstein

[1]

[2]

Kaplan SAT Strategies for Super Busy Students 2009 Edition: 10 Simple Steps ... By Kaplan

[3]

Garner's Modern American Usage By Bryan A. Garner

[4]

Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English: A Compendium of ... By Robert Hartwell Fiske

[5]

Got Grammar Ready-to-Use Lessons and Activities That Make Grammar Fun! By Jack Umstatter

[6]

I'm not discussing this anymore. You're free to believe what you want. Have a good day. ImmigrateEmigrate (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Please don't get discouraged. I really don't mean to put you off! I'm finding the discussion quite stimulating. Remember that our goal here isn't to establish some universal linguistic truth, nor is it to win an argument, but to arrive at a mutual understanding and consensus about the most effective way of conveying information to Wikipedia's readers. My hope is that our conversation can be synthesized into a proposal for a new usage guideline that will help other Wikipedia editors make smart choices.

If you feel that the discussion is getting a bit heated, then I understand if you'd like to take a break, but I hope you'll find it in you to continue this productive inquiry into what seems to be a pretty important style point.

Thanks for this excellent survey of style guides. They present a useful array of opinions on the question. Bernstein is clearly in the same camp as Elster: the verbs are each meant to subcategorize for a particular preposition. The Kaplan guide is more moderate but vaguely so, indicating that the subcategorization is not universal, but "usual." Garner is at the other end, saying that the verbs are interchangeable in certain circumstances, when the preposition used is sufficiently precise. Fiske and Umstatter appear to agree with Bernstein, though they don't explicitly state whether the subcategorization is universal or case-specific.

I still don't understand the basis for your point about Elster's example. I'm unaware of a constraint on the order of prepositional phrases in the English language. In Elster's sentence, both prepositional phrases are adjuncts of the verb, each fulfilling a complementary semantic role: one is the origin, the other the destination. From a syntactic and semantic perspective, both phrases have equivalent weight.

When you wrote, "I can interpret what you mean because of the context of our discussion, and I can interpret it into something entirely different," what would be the "entirely different" interpretation?

Associative prepositions are things like "in" in the sentence "I believe in Santa Claus." The presence or absence of the preposition alters the meaning of the verb. I see no indication that "emigrate" and "immigrate" are prepositional verbs. Indeed, they can be used with no preposition at all, as in, "There were few jobs available, so the family decided to emigrate."

I'm inclined to see the rules advanced by Elster, Bernstein, Fiske and Umstatter as general guidelines, rather than universally applied rules. That is to say, if one is unsure which verb to use, chances are good that, if one is using the preposition "to," then the focus is on the act of arrival, thus "immigrate" is more likely to be correct. Conversely, if one is using the preposition "from" then it's likely the sentence is focused on the act of departure and "emigrate" is likely to be correct. This is a simpler rule to understand than explaining the full semantics of the verbs, and thus more concise in a style guide that's meant to be a quick reference. In the same vein, "I before E, except after C" is still taught in schools because it's correct most of the time, despite there being numerous exceptions.

This interpretation seems to fit better with the historical usage of the terms, which doesn't appear to follow the rule just so. To interpret the rule at face value is artificially prescriptive, and has little basis in the English language as it actually exists. Ibadibam (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, I believe my comments were far more civil and useful than anything he's ever said. Either way, I'm not assuming good faith for someone who says "I don't care about Wikipedia's silly policy" and is deliberately petulant. Believe me, I've tried to AGF but the guy is a child, whether or not he's an IP, and should not be taken lightly. Note taken, either way. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds really unpleasant! I had to revert one of his edits myself. Some people just think they know everything and can't accept that Wikipedia is as much as social exercise as it is an encyclopedia, if not more. Hope the future is brighter Ibadibam (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the diplomatically put reminder. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this article has information about Egyptian Turks history and demographics but Turks in Egypt has a no formation about history nor demographics and this sentence (Turks in Egypt) talked about the Egyptian Turks as ethnic group in Egyptian society so I refused to merge my article with (Turks in Egypt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkmen oglu (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's far, far better to improve the existing article than create a new one about the same subject. Please leave the pages as they are, with templates in place, and participate in the discussion at Turks in Egypt#Proposed merge with Egyptian Turks. Ibadibam (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the express scope of WP:OC#PERF. HOwever, the principle needs to be applied also byu analogy to other situations. Two that are currently coming up regularly on WP:CFD are:

• Places located on named long-distance paths
• Chemical compounds that occur in particular species, some being extremely ubiquitous.

These category types raise exactly the same problems as the classic application of PERF. I will thereofre continue to cite it beyond its express scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 2, October 2013 Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.
Project News An updated front page, A new sister project and updates to our DYK page — View by clicking [show] — The project's main page has been redesigned and now has many new features; be sure to stop by and take a look! At Wikimedia Commons, the new WikiProject Food and Beverages was created by User:Willscrlt on September 5, 2013. Check it out, and feel free to join if interested. The project now has a new bot-generated list of new food and drink articles at AlexNewArtBot – New food and drink articles. A link to the page has been added to the project's main page. The project's DYK articles page was significantly expanded by User:Miyagawa and User:Jerem43 in September 2013. Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and feel free to update the lists with new entries. Please feel free to contribute to the creation of the newsletter's next issue. Article alerts — View by clicking [show] — Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.	Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. — View by clicking [show] — EdJF (talk · contribs) The project currently has 87 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: — View by clicking [show] — Bahamian cuisine Honolulu molasses spill Red Lane Tavern French's Tavern International Cocoa Organization Keshi yena Yates Tavern Khao tom mad Karlie's Kookies Tortuga (cocktail) Figaro Coffee Company American Winery Guide Krinos Foods Canada Mission Brewery GrubHub Seamless Chee.Toz Evangelical feast St. Jacobs' Farmers Market Manto negro Pore (bread) Beer in San Diego County, California The Chile Pepper Institute Past newsletters
Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 26,552 articles attributed to the project, including 10,197 stubs. There are 32 articles at Featured article class, 120 are at Good article class and 3 are at Featured list class. — View by clicking [show] — Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 13 29 49 FL 2 2 4 FM 139 139 A 1 1 GA 14 24 73 252 4 367 B 55 236 334 585 68 1,278 C 80 389 960 2,766 476 4,671 Start 22 322 1,645 9,941 4 3,798 15,732 Stub 17 556 7,862 5,035 13,470 List 11 69 110 467 23 271 951 Category 9 1 7,809 7,819 Disambig 157 157 File 3,008 3,008 Portal 614 614 Project 384 384 Redirect 10 72 551 2,690 3,323 Template 970 970 NA 1 1 2 Other 4 180 184 Assessed 183 1,085 3,764 22,460 15,979 9,652 53,123 Unassessed 22 2,107 2,129 Total 183 1,085 3,764 22,482 15,979 11,759 55,252 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 182,728 Ω = 5.14 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles view

• Delivered by Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a lot of the UK sandwiches are almost by inclusion NPOV: baked bean sanwiches (neither notable nor edible), crisp sandwich (forsooth) &c. Its understandable I'm a London-born European of UK descent (I'll go a long way to deny being British) and know that the country has a deeply dysfunctional attitude towards food. We used to eat anything, provided it was disgusting in some way, & have now swung to the opposite extreme. I.e we'll eat anything provided its garnished with the right adjectives. Still have not got the idea.TheLongTone (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To relax with after adding citation templates to Fiasco (role-playing game) Neonchameleon (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ibadibam. You have new messages at CraneInHand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ibadibam. You have new messages at CraneInHand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I posted some suggestions in the "sherd" talk section. Can't figure out if there is a way to have this message direct you there rather than to my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.211.246 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2014‎

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Livery Company#Requested move to Livery company. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't 100% sure it was noncontroversial which is why I went through TPM. Thanks for the sanity check. Ibadibam (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of places with "Silicon" names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian Silicon Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link was intentional, but may not be necessary. Ibadibam (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDIC. If you're unsure of why someone has done something, or disagree, best approach is to leave them a note rather than following behind reverting. If after reading WP:NOTDIC you still feel the topic has merit as an article, then we can open this up for wider discussion at WP:AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. I respect your frustration—it's annoying to have contributions reverted, especially a kneejerk revert like the one I just made, but I'd appreciate a good-faith effort to build consensus for this change, since it is roughly equivalent to deletion. Ibadibam (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the information. I didn't know about the newsblog exception. Question though, should that be reworded slightly, since the information is from last year? Onel5969 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds prudent. The IP who made the initial change was a bit heavy handed. Ibadibam (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there any reason you have inactive WP:EMAIL? I wanted to send you some information that I don't feel confident disclosing in public. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason. Enabled now. Ibadibam (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted Manwich to a broken version. I agree the ", Inc" is unnecessary, but my main reason for editing was to delete the ".". Buster79 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I missed the period. Probably the best thing to do would have been to just delete the period. Less heavy-handed that way. I've gone ahead and done so. Ibadibam (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Thanks, and apologies. Buster79 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ibadibam. You have new messages at Anmccaff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anmccaff (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ibadibam. Thanks for asking about "Semiotics of X". I have been seeing a series of semiotics-related articles, placing the template {{Semiotics-stub}} where applicable, and now there is a Category:Semiotics stubs as well. The articles without the sorting key seem to look easier to find on the category - just try and take a look. And, if my edition was inappropriate, please excuse me and feel free to revert it, if it's better that way out. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Water Is Wide (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a sixteenth-century song.<ref>{{Gutenberg|no=1054|name=The Water Is Wide (song)|bullet=none}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Eden Foods Inc. § Infant recovery

I've asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP. You might wish to comment. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Union Jack § Union Jack and flag codes

Thank you for fixing my mistake on Template:Lang-x. I do not want to mess things up!!

Latest revision as of 18:58, 12 August 2014 (edit) (undo) (thanked)

Ibadibam (talk | contribs)

(Reverted good faith edits by Thnidu (talk): This page is transcluded for multiple languages. (TW))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thnidu (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 August 2014

Ibadibam (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clatsop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nehalem. 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) 09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cacık, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint. 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) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hot Chicken sandwich, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There, I wrote an article about Mister Saturday Night a famous party and record label in NYC. Why would it be deleted? Are there changes I can make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjryan44 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tjryan44! You can read the rationale and contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Saturday Night. The basis for the nomination is that the article doesn't cite sources that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. I searched the web for more substantial coverage, but couldn't find any, so I couldn't determine that the topic meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. If you look at the discussion, however, you'll see that another editor, Northamerica1000, had better luck than I did finding sources, and linked to a few. The best thing to do now is to incorporate these sources into the article using citations, and demonstrating that this subject meets at least one of the notability criteria outlined in the WP:MUSBIO or WP:EVENTCRIT guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and my thanks for correcting it. Sorry. I started to copy one thing, moved on to another, and seem to have dropped someting where it didn't belong. ANMcC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, splitting comments is always tricky. I usually just add mine below the whole, long comment so as to avoid confusion on my part or that of the reader. Ibadibam (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hope the future is brighter"
Thank you, veteran editor, for gnomish improvements, for comments on article alerts, for restoring information, adding navboxes and removing unrelated ones, for welcoming new users and "Hope the future is brighter"- you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1114 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Ibadibam (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the span between anniversary messages double each time? Ibadibam (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no, five ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am bejeweled and bedazzled. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that while a flag may have a proper name, i.e. National Flag of Canada, terms like "Canadian flag" are generic Primergrey (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Ibadibam (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed a reference to Nigel Short as it is not accurate or supported with any evidence; nor is it relevant to the company in which the Wiki is about, nor its products.

I hope this makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.71.210 (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Howard Johnson's § Blazing Saddles

Hi Ibadibam. I am really happy that you have reached out to me. Thanks for your patience. I am super busy right now. I do plan to study the documents you have sent me and improve my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. If you have any specific recommendations or suggestions for me to improve my writing, or just any questions in general, please feel free to contact me in this way. I hope that's OK for the time being. I definitely would like to create an account in time. I tend to focus on inputting information and subsequenty, within a day or two, integrate it into the rest of the article by improving the grammar and flow. Thanks, 70.53.215.121 (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, I am French and are not easy in English. I will place at the end of the article the external link, please accept my thanks for improving my writings, PF pfpuech@yahoo.fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUECH P.-F. (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your edit in Wikipedia. I will try to do a part about Scripts, History and Research in Tunisian Arabic as soon as possible. I will inform you of any update when available so that you can review it immediately. --Csisc (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Seattle area? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help. Come to our first Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle on July 27, 2015, 6pm to 9pm, at Café Allegro

Yours, Peaceray

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I hope you like the sortable list that you suggested. Incidentally, there's already an incomplete list tag way at the top of the article. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I just removed the one at the top.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't notice it because it was at the top. Usually those templates go right before the list itself. Thanks for your hard work on the list. It's a much better page now! Ibadibam (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Berry, which is within WikiProject Food and Drink's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

Bananasoldier (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	What:	Wikipedia Lab
	When:	Weekly on Mondays, starting 10/5/2015 through 11/30/2015, 4:30pm-6:30pm
	Who:	UW students, faculty, and staff; Wikimedians; Seattle community members
	Where:	UW Research Commons
	Focus:	Women and the Sciences in October and Pacific Northwest in November; weekly topics
	Wikipedia Lab at the UW Libraries Research Commons brings together local Wikipedia experts with University of Washington subject specialists and UW community members to learn about editing Wikipedia. Come contribute vital, local, and corrective content to the world's largest online encyclopedia. Come as you are with questions, ideas, or content knowledge to share! The Wikipedia Lab will run weekly, every Monday, during fall quarter. The Lab has two thematic focuses: Women in the Sciences and the Pacific Northwest. Each week will feature a special collections librarian content specialist and Wikipedian editors. Sponsored by the UW Libraries & Wikimedians User Group

Hello, Ibadibam. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 14:00, 16 November 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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As marked here. Is this really an issue when the quoted content is public domain, and clearly solid? Where is there a policy or guideline against this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for contacting me! The relevant guideline is at WP:QUOTEFARM. Here are some reasons I think this particular use of quotation is problematic:

• Quotations are useful when...
  • the original text is clearer and more succinct than a paraphrase would be
  • the original phrase is noteworthy ("Hamlet says, 'Too be or not to be'" is much better than "Hamlet states that the issue in question is between being and the absence thereof.")
  • the material is controversial and/or prone to misinterpretation, and thus better to let the original speak for itself
• Having the body of the article be an excerpt from a single source gives undue weight to that source and its perspective. A good article conveys diverse information from multiple sources. Granted, this particular source is fairly objective, but the point remains that Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for public domain text; it's an encyclopedia with its own content.
• While the text was published on a government website, it is not necessarily in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works). The disclaimer for this project states that the text is the authorship of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the National Council of Preservation Educators, neither of which are government organizations and thus not subject to automatic release of copyright. Long quotations exceed the bounds of fair use and thus open up Wikipedia to copyright infringement claims.

Ideally, we'll be able to convert this passage to paraphrase and intermix it with information from other sources. Ibadibam (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that's very clear. In particular, I had no idea that wasn't PD. - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could help me, as I see you've contributed to this article.

I'm submitting a research proposal for a PhD scholarship, and its basically a compositional study of all 42 of the seven-note modes (excluding ones with consecutive semitones), as they are seen in the table on the "anhemitonic scale" page.

These scales are described as "ancohemitonic". I was wondering - do you know whose labelling this is? I can't find this term mentioned anywhere else on the internet.

If this is the widely accepted term for these types of scale, then it would be very helpful to me, as I can refer to the scales I wish to study in my PhD as heptatonic "ancohemitonic" modes.

Many thanks for your help,

Tom

--82.37.39.47 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom! I'm not familiar with those terms, nor have I contributed to that article (apart from some superficial copyediting). I'd start with the article's list of references, particularly the notes for the passages wherein the terms are introduced: Christ (1966), Tymoczko (1997) and Keith (1991).

Please let me know what you find. It's important we verify those sources to ensure they actually support the article's content, something that can be difficult for those of us without access to academic databases. Ibadibam (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion.

Why might it be better?

I have adopted the practice of accumulating "Further Reading" lists to give readers a bibliography around a line or a railway and the stations on it. I've done the same throughout the CWJR and WCER and the Immingham area and you are the first to ask the question.

When I cite sources they are specific to that article, but Further Reading is just that. I don't misuse it and include things with no relevance, but try to give the reader opportunities.

Thank you for your interest.

DaveDavidAHull (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, Dave. If readers want more information about the line or railway, I'd generally expect them to first visit the Wikipedia article on that line or railway, and thereby have access to the further reading list on that page, so it wouldn't be necessary to duplicate the list in all related pages. If the reader wants more information about the line, they'd consult the further reading list for the line article. For more on the station, they'd consult the list for the station article.

So in the case of the station itself, and really any page at all, I'd limit the list items to works that cover that topic in particular. While the relevant guideline (WP:FURTHER) only discusses "a reasonable number" of works, the essay Wikipedia:Further reading lays out a case for some limits on the length of the further reading appendix, namely that the works should be directly relevant to the article's specific topic, and consist only of enough works to give the reader an adequate survey of that topic, lest we make them pick through an abundance of tangentially related material to find the information they seek.

I would also add that, in the case of short articles, "further reading" works may be seen as potential sources for future expansion of the article, and thus the goal is to gradually reduce the length of the reading list and increase that of the references list.

In the case of Micklam railway station, the further reading list occupies about as much space as the article body itself, and looks like it contains works that are not so much about the station as they are about operations in the general region. It's not to say that it's doing any particular harm, but if I were doing research on the Micklam station, I'd appreciate the resource much more if the list had already filtered out the works that don't cover the station in detail. Ibadibam (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you chuck away the lot, as Micklam is mentioned in several (eg on maps) but none of the Further Reading contains anything specific, or I would have included it in references. I must say it seems rum to prefer to face an interested reader with no potentially fruitful material rather than a list of tangentially fruitful material, but hey, I had fun finding the stuff, why deny others that pleasure? I've moved on to trying to do something else constructive now, so over to you: I find, you trash. Have fun. DaveDavidAHull (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really comfortable making changes to the page, as I'm unfamiliar with the topic. I was only doing some page patrolling and this article was of sufficient quality that I had to stretch to find any room for improvement to include as feedback in the review. That feedback is offered in good faith, without any obligation to use it. I'm just going to leave a maintenance tag on the article and let you and other knowledgeable Wikipedians sort it out. Thanks for the correspondence, and happy editing! Ibadibam (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Farmyard Song, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bampton. 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) 09:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For tirelessly refining the gold from the junk across Wikipedia. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my first-ever barnstar. That's really nice of you, Magoo! Ibadibam (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rhetorical question may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |(Shakespeare|''Julius Caesar'', III.i.148}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ibadibam. You have new messages at Gil Dawson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

is interesting. one click for the revert - adequate effort, I'd say. But then this immaculate long sentence in the justification. It would have taken you the same amount of time and reasoning to just remedy the situation. Instead: back to the baseline. I don't get it. -- Kku 07:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch! I didn't revise the paragraph because I don't think it's in any urgent need of revision. Otherwise, yes, you're absolutely right that it would have been lazy of me to simply revert. Ibadibam (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the Churchill quote is already in the article under Popular Culture but only because you moved it there! The quote was not in the article until I introduced it. This is an important quote as it shows that a very significant person such as Churchill used the term Union Jack and did NOT use the name Union Flag. He was not only the Prime Minister of the UK twice but also he served as First Lord of the Admiralty. Seeing as there are some very determined people who seem to want to relegate the name Union Jack to slang trying to dominate this page I believe that this quotation should be in the section about correct terminology. And you added that he used the term in a 'derisively' way which is not the case at all - that is NOT supported by the source material that I utilized and is pure opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Platinumpaintitblack: You made this comment six minutes after I had removed the offending phrase. Perhaps our edits crossed? Ibadibam (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ibadidam. I'm not posting on the UJ page for at least another day to avoid 3RR or edit warring accusations (actually I only 1RR'ed but that can be sufficient) however as a more temperate editor you might care to cast an eye over this for debunking of the "modern" comment. May I also draw your attention to (1) this was a private informal letter from a young man to his mum and (2) "the Union Jack & the Star Spangled Banner" - is Platinumpaintblack now going to argue that the name of the US flag is also to be changed? On another point, other than going to ANI, could you suggest an alternative warning other than uw-vandalism3? Lesser warnings say that the changes will be reverted, but I didn't want to revert due to the risk of 3RR/1RR. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the discussion you linked in your comment. For warning procedure, see my response in the section below. I would like to avoid ANI if at all possible. Ibadibam (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ibadibam I originally inserted the Churchill quote as I believe that as possibly the most significant statesman in UK history (certainly one of) whether he routinely called the UK flag Union Jack or Union Flag is highly significant and should be in the 'Terminology' section of this page. I did not introduce this quote in order to discuss his mother's proposed magazine. If that had been my intention I would agree it would be more appropriate to the 'Popular Culture' section - but that was not my intention. Therefore I disagree with your relegation of an article that I (not anyone else) originally introduced into the Union Jack page. I am being accused by others of 'vandalism' and 'edit-warring' but it is not me aggressively deleting or moving another's entry - I am the victim here. I introduce a perfectly valid and relevant point - with associated link to prove provenance and confirm the credibility of the point I am making - and I find myself being edited left-right and centre! Why? Because those editing my point don't like the point I am making maybe? There can be no other reason as my point is correct, valid and proven with links. That type of editing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Platinumpaintitblack: we're not out to get you. There is no conspiracy to suppress "Union Jack" and your edits are being reverted not because we don't like your opinion, but because the very content you are adding is not helpful to the article. Consider the following:

1. You continue to say that the Churchill paragraph should be in the "Terminology" section, but each time you add it there, you don't remove it from "In popular culture", so you are in effect creating duplicate content. In fact, in your most recent revert, you re-added language to which you'd previously objected.
2. You are attempting to use a primary source to support a conclusion which that source does not make. The Wikipedia community calls this original research, and it's expressly forbidden on this website.
3. After an editor has reverted one's changes, the best practice is to go to the talk page to discuss the issues raised by the reverter. Only when all parties have reached consensus should further action be taken in the article. By re-adding your content before we have concluded our discussion, you are circumventing the consensus-building process.

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Union Jack#Churchill on the flag. Please respond there, discussing only the quotation and the article—not questions of editing procedure—and desist from editing the article until we've sorted the matter out. If you would like to continue a separate discussion on procedure, we can do that here. Ibadibam (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Wikipedia is there for everyone to edit - I quote the page in Wikipedia about Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is a free Internet encyclopedia that allows its users to edit almost any article accessible." ^[1]. You and ‘Martin of Sheffield’ appear to feel that you are 'super-editors' who can act as pseudo-official Wiki-personnel using pseudo-official language to enforce your own opinions and decisions on others. It is up to me what I insert and if I don't break the rules then my posts should stand. I will happily go to the real official Wiki-people for their adjudication. I have been accused of vandalism by ‘Martin of Sheffield’. I quote again the page on Wikipedia - "Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising language and other types of spam. Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively." My insertion on Churchill's use of the term Union Jack does NOT break any of these rules. Indeed I would draw your attention out the part that states - "Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information" - so those deleting my own contributions (which do not themselves break the rules) are guilty of 'vandalism' according to this definition. I inserted some interesting and valid points. I accepted your suggestion (after you had deleted the contribution) that I quoted sources and I subsequently did so and re-posted the information. I have desisted from adding the point about the 'Union Jack Club' as I agree it is a more subtle point that some might not understand. But the Churchill quote I wish to have added to the site in the Terminology section, where I believe it belongs, alongside other points about the name of the flag. It has since been aggressively deleted, altered and moved. That is 'vandalism' according to the rules of Wikipedia. It is my contribution and I want it to go where I believe it is justified in going - and as I am not breaking the rules it should be left unadulterated by other editors who obviously have ulterior motives. I suggest that people editing and deleting my contribution simply don't agree with my point even though I back the points up with solid and credible support sources. So - report me to whoever you like. I will be happy to argue my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Platinumpaintitblack: Martin was wrong to place a boilerplate vandalism warning on your page. You didn't commit vandalism, because stubborness is not vandalism, even if it's not particularly constructive.

It's also worth nothing that no one else has committed vandalism here. If a user removes content without cause, that's vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate. When a user removes content with cause, that's not vandalism. I know you've been shown this link before, but the BOLD really does explain a lot about the working procedure most Wikipedia editors expect to be observed by our peers.

Again, you've not committed vandalism and I apologize for the improper warning placed on your talk page. I also think BilCat's revert of your edits was hasty. Martin actually tried to strike a compromise between you and BilCat after that, one which I tried to improve, however imperfectly. By rejecting this compromise without attempting discussion, although you didn't violate the vandalism policy, you did violate the Consensus policy. Your content also violates the No original research policy. You also may have violated the Edit warring policy. I'd prefer not to go to the administrators over this, because all this can be resolved if we come to an agreement about the content on the article talk page.

And remember, just as you are free to edit a page, so are other editors free to revise the content you add, to better fit it into the existing article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. When there are disputes, we go to the talk page and work it out. But persistently adding the same thing, without first participating in discussion, frustrates our attempts at collaboration (again, see WP:BRD). Ibadibam (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your tips regarding minor edits and such. Padder333 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving my clumsy and inexpert attempts (over some time) to transform and tidy up the page originally created on Jim Radford by a well meaning contributor simply copying in text from Jim Radford's own web page. I had intended to undo one of your edits (deleting category British Peace Movements and adding category British Pacifists) as Jim Radford is not a pacifist and invariably corrects those who mistakenly apply this label to him (this is on record but is not significant enough to be put in the references). However when I checked this category it turned out to be called "Anti-War Activists" which is a label that Jim Radford does apply to himself so I have let it stand. Redrocker (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English pacifists and Category:English anti-war activists are actually two different categories, and I had revised the categorization after I added the first category, though I can't remember what prompted me to do that. Maybe I came across an interview of his where he made that point. At any rate, my priority at the time was to get him out of Category:Peace movements, since I think we can all agree that he is not a peace movement unto himself. So I'm glad we've landed the page in a suitable category. Ibadibam (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: University of Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA 47°39′25″N 122°18′19″W / 47.6570676°N 122.3054000°W / 47.6570676; -122.3054000 (Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA) Please go to the door on the north-northwest side. The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing and bringing the membership registration form and $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2017 at the meeting as well. Also, we are pleased to announce that the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is now a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083.

Doubtless it's a little rough around the edges, but I'd prefer if you -and everyone, for that matter- didn't summarily swoop in and change it. "an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own," and all that. Anmccaff (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I saw the malformed section heading and figured it was some trace of the message the now-blocked Winterysteppe had left you. I'll leave your page in peace. Ibadibam (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'd forgotten WS; Ou sont les trolls d'antan?" Compared to some loon calling Harvard Public Health a "fringe source," the fellow almost seemed sane. Anmccaff (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no position at South Beach Diet. Ancamff's stance on that content has been repudiated by every single person who has reviewed that content and ref. Except Ammccaff who has been disruptive and is on the edge of a topic ban.

If you have a position on the content, please state it at the Talk page. Tagging and running is WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Your recent editing history at South Beach Diet 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 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. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That I'm not participating in the dispute doesn't mean I can't document the fact that it is taking place. That's not disruptive; it's informative. Please let the tag stand until the dispute is resolved. Please also see my note to you at User talk:Jytdog#Removing maintenance templates. Ibadibam (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not involved in the dispute then I recommend you leave it alone. There is no valid content dispute; there is only disruptive behavior on the part of Ammcalf, and now by you. Ammcaff's position has precisely zero support. None. Again if you believe there is actually a valid content dispute, please state your position at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that Ammcalf is being disruptive, but that doesn't give you license to take out your frustration on a bystander like myself. Like I said, I'm not your enemy here. Ibadibam (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to involve yourself and to treat this like a content issue, which it is not. This is a long standing behavior issue, which is why this is at ANI, and why experienced editors there are !voting for a TBAN. Claiming that it is a content dispute, is taking a stance (one that is not defensible, at that). You are not a "bystander". Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how any of my editing has been disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark612 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back in touch. The disruptive editing warning I left on your talk page last October was in regard to this edit of Swensons, where you restored problematic content, and without an edit summary, to boot. This was the second time you attempted to restore this content (this being the first). Other issues are detailed on your talk page and Talk:Swensons#BBYO. Let me know if youhave any questions about all that. At any rate, your recent contributions appear much more constructive, so keep it up! Ibadibam (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing as Activism: Black WikiHistory Month Workshop and Edit-a-thon Social Justice Organizers at University of Washington-Bothell are hosting a two-day editing event for Black WikiHistory Month on Feb. 22 and Feb. 23, 2017. Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle/Editing as Activism Learn to Purposefully Edit Wikipedia February 22, 2017 ~3-5:30pm Location: UW Bothell Activities & Recreation Center (ARC) Overlook (Sports and Recreation Complex on the campus map), Second floor, room 202. Address: 18220 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011; vehicle parking in North parking garage $3 for 3 hours or $6/all day rate cash or card This workshop gives you the critical tools you need to log on with purpose and make edits that make a difference. Led by Monika Sengul-Jones Black History Month Edit-a-thon February 23, 2017 3-6pm Location: UW Bothell Common Grounds Cafe in the Commons Hall (UW2), main floor. Address: 18115 Campus Way NE Bothell, WA 98011; vehicle parking in South parking garage $3 for 3 hours or $6/all day rate cash or card Put your editing skills to work in a group editing session. Edit and/or create pages that improve Wikipedia's coverage of Black history and culture. All welcome. Novice editors encouraged to attend the Learn to Purposefully Edit session on Feb. 22. Bring your laptops, power cords, and books/articles to edit with. All are welcome; this event is specifically geared towards the University of Washington student and faculty community. Light refreshments will be served. Affiliated Sponsor: Cascadia Wikimedians User Group To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

cascadia.wiki

cascadia.wiki

Art+Feminism Learn to Edit Pre-session When: Friday, March 3rd, 2017, from 12-2pm PT Where: Research Commons, Allen Library South, Ground floor. University of Washington. Seattle, WA 98195 Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon When: Saturday, March 4th, 2017, 9am-1pm PT Where: Research Commons, Allen Library South, Ground floor. University of Washington. Seattle, WA 98195 Google Map link The University of Washington Research Commons, Cascadia Wikimedians, iArts, & iQueeries will jointly host an Art+Feminism event in March at the Research Commons. Join us for a communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to art and feminism! Our focus is on improving Wikipedia's representation of North American Indigenous art, Indigenous womxn artists, and Indigenous feminism. We will provide tutorials for beginner Wikipedians, childcare, refreshments, and live streaming for those unable to attend. Cost is free! Anyone and everyone who wishes to attend this event is welcome. Bring your own laptops and power cords (guest access to UW WiFi will be available). RSVP here: http://bit.ly/AFUW-RSVP Event page: http://bit.ly/ArtFeminismUW Transportation: Sign up here http://bit.ly/AFUW-Carpool for carpooling Childcare: Please indicate your need for childcare in our RSVP form: http://bit.ly/AFUW-RSVP To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ibadibam. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia Library - Newspapers.com.
Message added 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the correct ship. Would you like to add the info to the article or shall I? Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right! I'm impressed you found it (I couldn't find anything on any ship databases I looked at). Please go ahead and add it – it looks to me like you're more familiar than I am with the infobox and ship articles in general. Ibadibam (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Despite its wide reach, content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors: white, technically inclined, English-speaking men that live in developed, majority-Christian countries. This represents an alarming absence of voices in an increasingly important repository of shared knowledge. In an effort to change this, the Jake is organizing a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Saturday, May 6th, 1 - 5 pm. Our mission is to bring together diverse communities to participate in Wikipedia editing, and improve its coverage of queer people and women of color in the arts. We will provide childcare, snacks, and tutorials for the beginner editor. Bring your laptop, power-cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. No previous Wikipedia experience required! RSVP at and stay tuned to our Facebook page for updates. What: Improving Wikipedia's coverage on queer and women artists of color When: Saturday, May 6, 1-5pm Where: Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Art Building #132, 1915 NE Chelan Ln, Seattle, WA 98105 Who: People of all gender identities and expressions are invited to participate. What to bring: A laptop and power cord. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affliated participants. To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ibadibam. Thank you for helping to remove the unsourced and dubious additions being made to the above-named article. However, your recent edit served to maintain the first in the series of unsourced and dubious additions. I presume this was inadvertent and have taken the liberty of restoring to the version from immediately prior to that unsourced addition.

By way of background, you might want to know that an IP address (User talk:71.47.93.214) was blocked three times back in April for making these types of edits to various Carribean-related articles, including the above-named one. The new account that is currently editing these articles is making the same types of edits to the same types of articles (in some cases, the edits are identical).

Thanks again for helping to remove those unsourced and dubious additions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It does appear to be a tendentious editor, although I might stop short of calling it outright vandalism. Ibadibam (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Acclamation. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Acclamation (liturgy) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Ibadibam, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't promise that there won't be some retaliation, but like you said, they set up the rules, they need to follow them. Plus I felt that his responses were rather rude.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. We all put up with a lot of nonsense from other editors on Wikipedia, even from veteran editors like you and me, and I'm sure he's dealt