Archives

Feb 2022–April 2024 April 2024-present

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

This is MSincccc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 20 days

I thought you would welcome that edit. You had previously complained about the addition of the second public appearance, and I said at the time that once we had more context we could add it. Well, now we have more context. She is making "occasional" appearances, and I think the two refs that I offered verify the statement very clearly. I really don't understand what you are doing. You just seem to revert anything that you have not thought through sufficiently. Don't worry, I will never help you with another article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Not that I was trying to alienate you or that I want to shoo you away but that was just not meant for the article. They go to church in Balmoral every time at this time of the year; it was a private visit with the family and not one in an official capacity. Please feel free to add an engagement from the future when she carries out something in an official capacity (which she is yet to do since her Wimbledon appearance). Furthermore, if you were really looking forward to adding another appearance of hers, why not even add the fact that she appeared in a video along with other public figures and Prince William to congratulate Team GB athletes after the Olympics? Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The change that I made DOES NOT ADD another appearance. In fact it *removes* an appearance, and it summarizes and contextualizes all of her appearances since she began cancer treatment, which is what you need in the article, and what readers currently need to know. So either you failed to pay attention to what my change actually did, or you are simply making a knee-jerk reversion of the content. Either way, I don't like your judgment (in addition to your prose) and don't want to work with you anymore. BTW: A video is not the same as a public appearance, as it is made in a controlled environment, unlike a public appearance. You could be sitting on a toilet, vomiting every 5 minutes, and still make a video. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Your revision does "ADD" an appearance as the Parade article you cited (could have used the Daily Telegraph or other finer sources also, if really important) mentions her visit to Crathie Cirk with other members of the family. Furthermore, the FAC was filled with comments as to cut down on the amount of "She did this, she did that" material and that parts of the article read like "a laundry list". If you could help me with cutting down on unnecessary information and replace sources with higher quality ones (including books) please do. Also you are welcome to put forth your comments at the next peer review. Regards and apologies if I did bother you in any way (but that was never my intention). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I don't like your judgment (in addition to your prose) and don't want to work with you anymore. Sorry for having made you feel that way, but again that was never my intention and even on my worst day here I would not have done such a thing to any editor. I am still pretty young and I would appreciate it if the others could collaborate effectively. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my angry words, and wish only good luck to you in your future endeavors. I have unsubscribed to this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers One last point, please. Will you put forth your suggestions at the article's next Peer Review if you find it convenient to do so? Also please put forth any valuable suggestions if possible. I understand that you made the edit in good faith. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. My edit was a clear improvement to the article. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you. Please stop pinging me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers I have replaced your source with a higher quality one but it conveys the same information. Let me know of your thoughts on this in your response. Thereafter, I will close this thread. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Her next appearance came in July" That is a very poor edit and makes the article demonstrably worse, as she has made multiple appearances since June. My edit would have greatly improved your article. Please do not contact me about this again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this change by your colleague has finally reinstated my edit, so it is fine now. I am assuming that the drama you created was some kind of mistake on your part, but I still do not wish to work with you any further. Please do not post to my Talk page again, and I will extend the same courtesy to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, your revision only added a reference pertaining to her latest appearance. You never made any changes to the corresponding prose nor did you include it in your suggestions. You had ample time to modify the prose according to the reference added. Ssilvers I hope you will agree to the fact that you never suggested any changes for the prose nor did you make any. Furthermore, I do not see any reason why you should accuse me of starting a "sort of drama" ? I never initiated one and I still assume good faith. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very, very wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers One last comment before I close this discussion. I am assuming that the drama you created was some kind of mistake on your part, but I still do not wish to work with you any further. No drama on my part, for sure. This situation would not have arisen at all had you at least suggested any changes to the prose. Furthermore, my colleague's edit was never the one you made-since you never mentioned prose tweaks until recently. What do you have to say with regards to this? MSincccc (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Well, yes you did. My sincere apologies for my careless oversight. I never noticed it. But then you should know I am still in my early teens and the fact that I was in the middle of my sleep when the notification clicked that a revision had been made meant I only looked upto the extent that a not-so reliable source had been used. Would you mind forgiving me? I assure you that a similar occurence would not take place in future. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I forgive you, but, IMO: 1. You should not involve yourself with trying to promote articles to the GA or FA level until you no longer have the urge to edit "in the middle of your sleep" and preferably not until you complete undergraduate work at a university; and 2. If someone challenges a reversion you make, you should look back at the history much, much, much, much, much, much more carefully before insisting that you are right (and then insisting that you are right; and then and then insisting that you are right; and then insisting that you are right; and then insisting that you are right). Now, will you please, please leave me alone until, say, 2035? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine promotion

Ssilvers I would really appreciate it if you could guide me and continue to make valuable edits so that I can achieve FA status for Catherine's and William's articles. I really want to improve its quality and I assure you that I will not repeat similar behaviour in the future. Looking forward to your response. Hopefully, you will assist me. Regards. P.S I will not unnecessarily leave messages on your talk page (or any other editors) hereafter. But please allow me to contribute to the quality of articles here. MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no influence on whether you contribute or not, but if I were you, I would work on promoting stubs to starts and starts to C-class before focusing on higher level articles. As for Catherine, as I have said to you before, the prose and content throughout is not FA level, IMO, and when editors tried to give you and your colleague comments at FAC, the two of you (I will refer to you both as "you" below) did not seriously address their comments, but instead "put a bandaid" on the immediate problem instead of elevating the article more broadly. The most hilarious thing that I remember is that we said, you need to cite more books, and you said, Oh, there aren't any books. Then someone posted a list of at least a dozen of them. I also remember telling you that you should go back through the comments, including Tim riley's and address them much more seriously by totally re-thinking the content that led to his comment and seeing if you could expand the most interesting content about Catherine much more broadly. I had also suggested that the Lead section does not adequately summarize all of the sections of the article, and instead of responding usefully, you added a sentence that is a simple list of the topics that had been completely missing. I'm sorry that I cannot say this more kindly: you seem like a very nice young person, but I do not think you are yet capable to doing FA quality work at present, due to your age, experience and educational level (see, e.g. Tim riley's response to you at another FAC today about your rigid understanding of a rigid grammar rule about one-sentence paragraphs -- most grammar rules are not rigid, but are guidelines that should be helpful in most cases). You should not be disappointed by this, but should be patient and, if you continue to be enthusiastic about Wikipedia, the most helpful things for you would be to continue to study English grammar and English literature, research techniques and perhaps library science. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Earthshot Prize you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earthshot Prize for comments about the article, and Talk:Earthshot Prize/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can i get your e-mail? I have written the text of an article and collected the sources (it's a biography article of a female media personality), but I've never created a new article and I'm looking for someone who has experience and would like to. Would you be willing to help? Mlody1312 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mark Zuckerberg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FeydHuxtable -- FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an old school reviewer, I like to make things easy for nominators & often do much of the work for full GA criteria compliance myself. See this or that example review for how I tend to operate. If you prefer the sort of reviewer who gives you pages worth of bullet points to respond to, let me know in the next couple of days & I'll cancel the review. Thank for all the work you've done improving the article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mark Zuckerberg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mark Zuckerberg for comments about the article, and Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FeydHuxtable -- FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm just curious to know what benefit you see in having the Wales children and Sussexes short descriptions be "Member of the British royal family", rather than "British prince(ss)" like all other (born royal) family members? short descriptions are meant to be as short as possible, so I don't see any benefit to your version versus all others. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your version of the Sussex children's and the Sussexes' articles short descriptions. Also Charlotte's birth year is mentioned in her article title; hence, it should not be repeated in the short description. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that strongly opposed to leaving the date out of her short descriptions, but WP:SDDATES does say we should include the date and doesn't mention any exceptions for those with dates already in the title. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even I am not strongly opposed to that idea. But presentation is also a thing. .

P.S I hope you are satisfied with my recent revisions and that you will help me improve the quality of British royalty articles in future. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]