User talk:Thrissel

Welcome!

Hello, Thrissel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Bejnar (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that we, as Wikipedia editors, have agreed to eschew is original research. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. What you did in the edit to the American and British English differences article is called synthesis, where two sources are combined to make a point. In this instance you took the two definitions of sedan and saloon and combined them to show the two usages. Instead, what you should have done was find a source that makes the direct comparison, or foregone the addition. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be exhaustive, they are intended to show the state of knowledge about a topic. Exhaustive articles are for academic publications. This is an encyclopedia. I hope this helps you understand the policy better. Please don't view this as criticism, it was a very nice edit, but instead view it as an introduction to some of Wikipedia's policies. --Bejnar (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the welcome and for explaining. I haven't realised it could be seen as OR, but point taken now. (In fact I initially wanted to use as a reference Oxford Learner's English Dictionary, whose 6th edition says expressly "saloon (also saloon car) (both BrE) (AmE sedan)", but thought the OED would be a more, say, "respectable" source.) Neither did I want to be exhaustive, yet I thought this word(s) to be frequent enough in everyday speech to be listed. Anyway, User:Old Moonraker has taken care of it now. Nevertheless, thanks again for pointing the edit's flaw out to me, and don't hesitate to tell me when I botch something next time - I was always best at learning the hard way ;-) ! --Thrissel (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition to October 23, just to let you know I have changed your Scotland and England to Scotland and England (like this [[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]] and [[Kingdom of England|England]] by using pipes so as to show the names now in use while linking to the countries as they were at the time.) --Drappel (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. As I actually "stole" the whole sentence at 1295, I made the same change there as well. --Thrissel (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: (Undid revision 324475533 by Eog2016 (talk) - definite article not necessary) The Definite Article is used before most names of languages in Gaelic. Page 106 in the book 'A Gaelic Grammar' by GEORGE CALDER. b.d., d. litt. Published by Alex. MacLaren & Sons,,GLASGOW in 1923, states the following; "7. (The Article is used) :with names of languages : Am faigh a' Ghàidhlig bàs — Will Gaelic die ? Anns a' Bheurla chruaidh—in hard English" I hope that you can appreciate from the above two examples that one should use the article before the word Gàidhlig. By using this one also should notices that the word changes to Ghàidhlig! You are incorrect in stating that the "definite article not necessary" in this particular case and therefore I would appreciate it if you would reinstate my changes. Eog2016 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's not exactly correct. Although the definite article is used before the names of languages quite often, in particular in the genitive and dative cases, it's not required, and the form without the article (and lenition) is the more usual option in sentences like Tha Gàidhlig aige or ag ionnsachadh Gàidhlig". That's why Gaelic dictionaries mention the article in the headword when its use is necessary (eg some placenames) but not with the names of languages. You might also be interested in this recent debate at Fòram na Gàidhlig. Cheers, --Thrissel (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thrissel!

I have added a sentence (Wiktionary: demi, point 2) which may help you understand how this adjective works when the French do not use it as an adjective ^[1].

By the way, I've been several times to Cill Rìmhinn, first to take a look at the famous Golf 'temple', then I saw the beauty of this area… What a shock for me! I do love it, as well as the Highlands. Kąġi Oȟąko (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Two thumbs up for your website!

(answered)

I don't think that consolidating the disambiguation pages under Armadillo (disambiguation) would be seen as too bold. I would applaud that action, and I believe that it is in accord with the disambiguation guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on St James Church, St Andrews requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (reasoning) 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article St James Church, St Andrews has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article should be deleted for failing WP:Verifiability. Article makes no claim of notability for this "small" church. The generic name combo makes it hard to search for sources, and I failed to turn up anything. There are no incoming links to help either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 13:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clicked on Halloween discussion, one German editor Bakulan is trying to rewrite the article how he sees it (German view of having absolutely no celtic origin whatsoever) and has done so to Samhain article, and with no concensus. Having looked at edit history, you have contributed to Samhain page so i thought i'd notify editors of this (if you haven't already got it on watchlist of course). --Xavier 21 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily Dbachmann handled the situation already, as I know next to nothing about the festival itself, just corrected Scottish Gaelic spelling and pronunciation there and later reverted a few edits clearly asking for it. But thanks for telling me anyway. --Thrissel (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thrissel/aois requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, it didn't work anyway. --Thrissel (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY, but ancient Greek ONOPORDOS (Latin ONOPORDON) means : DONKEY FART!

philmarin - Madrid (Spain); June, 20th 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmarin (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL no, the page you directed to doesn't translate, word for word, "onopordon" as "pet+d’âne"="fart+of donkey", it just says that it's the Latin name for the cotton thistle, which in French can be also called pet-d’âne. --Thrissel (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, you're WRONG; Et je sais de quoi je parle... IOH (In Other Hand), speedy delete of Onopordum acanthium seeds picture is BRITless and BRITEless... Rgds - Philippe Marin - Madrid (Spain), June 20th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.51.23.92 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how that happened. I see the diff that appears to show that I made that edit, but for the life of me I know that I did not make those edits. I don't know if someone hacked my account or what, but I've reverted that edit, and made the one I intended to. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, it's gotta be gremlins. Or Poltergeists. One of the two. I just know it. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey -- sorry for the slow reply. just wanted to say thanks for the apology, and no hard feelings. i didn't realize my edit was controversial - the change in the lead was aimed at improving the language ("a religion invented as a fictional religion" sounds rather awkward to me). i think the article needs to clarify that bokononism has a life outside of cat's cradle, if this is the case. (as a sidenote, i also think it's debatable whether it can be considered an actual religion, but that's a separate discussion.) k kisses 12:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no hard feelings on my part either. In fact I have later on tried to find some source documenting the existence of "real life" Bokononists and failed. I once had inclinations in that direction myself, so when people assert their existence on the talkpage (cf the Merge section) I have no reason not to believe them, but I agree that unless and until this can be referenced like any other challenged statement, we should keep it as "fictional" here. --Thrissel (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in the Scottish Gaelic task force which is part of Wikiproject Scotland would be greatly appreciated. If you are interested, please visit the task force's page in order to see how you would be able to participate.

JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 20:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Grimms' Fairy Tales a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I made a request accordingly. --Thrissel (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being a nuisance, I have to say that it won't pass as an uncontroversial renaming—there are few of those around. Instead, I have created a request at Talk:Grimm's Fairy Tales#Requested move. It will be under discussion for a week. Favonian (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No nuisance at all, I can accept that even if something seems quite uncontroversial to myself, it may still seem controversial to others. Thanks again for taking care of it! --Thrissel (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 22:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thistle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldfinch (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) 04:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electric fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Taylor (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) 12:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for accidentally undoing your edit - entirely agree with you it needed to come out. Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right, it did occur to me that you may have edited from previous version - something I've done by mistake once or twice myself. Happy editing, --Thrissel (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded to you on my talk page —rybec 00:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clì Gàidhlig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeview (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) 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh of the evening [1]. I had read this quickly already but not reflected on it. Quite a fun and probably unintended pun, good catch.Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'S e do bheatha :). --Thrissel (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Clì Gàidhlig logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was superseded by a new version,[2] you can remove it. --Thrissel (talk) 21:28, 27 January 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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thrissel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]