User talk:Victor Yus

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perfect (grammar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjugation (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) 11:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imperative mood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjugation (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) 12:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

English conditional sentences (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Conjunction and Implication

Conditional sentence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Implication

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your amusement Cheers!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 07:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

responededCurb Chain (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interrogative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (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) 11:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infinitive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imperative (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) 11:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you updated the hatnote at

]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Participle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strong verb (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) 11:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments at Village Pump (policy), I wanted to follow up that I agree with your assessment of the current policy. It is procedurally slanted in favor of the editor introducing the change because the article's stewards must by definition be the first to revert within the meaning of that term in 3RR. That's not to say that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 was wrong in saying that edit warring can be caught prior to 3RR, but the brightline that Guy Macon spoke of does indeed favor the initial change. This is interesting because it represents policy contrary to

, a widely-cited and widely-followed editorial suggestion. In struggling to come to terms with it myself, I've decided that the central point is that it favors dynamism over staticness.

• The central idea is that Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia and it needs to change to grow. 3RR favors changes to articles.
• 3RR also works to emphasize intentional changes as the first reversion is often the best way to clear away test edits or edits by those that don't actually care about the content and who have made editorial misjudgments. If the reversion is reverted then the editor clearly intended the edit he made and unless it's blatant vandalism it should be discussed at this point.
• And of course 3RR distinguishes between arguments involving old pros and those who are less familiar with the rules. An "old pro" will know after his first revert has been reverted that the cards are against him and that it's best to pursue discussion now. This is informally known as the 1RR. If 3RR were balanced against the newly changing editor then we'd have a situation where it would be incumbent upon the new changer to be familiar enough with the rules to practice 1RR, but in the end it's much more likely that a reverting editor will know enough to stick to 1RR than a changing editor who is more likely to be a new inexperienced editor.
  

So those are my observations. I do agree that 3RR is stacked against BRD and that does bother me a little, but I think in the end that it makes some sense. -Thibbs (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Succession to the British throne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William IV (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) 11:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, thank you for your editing and care in the article Pogrom! Wikipedia appreciates your helpPatriot1010 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Victor. I seem to recollect that you are "a Wales supporter with other loyalties" — a match that will not be forgotten by me. All the best!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What were you planning to do with this and/or why did you create it in the first place? There are obviously already articles for

]

I envisage that the two specific articles will be replaced by redirects to the combined article, as discussed on one of the talk pages. I'll raise this on both talk pages today. Victor Yus (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was getting in your way when we were both trying to free the Wikipedia:Summary style article from vandalism. Thanks for the catch. Yintan²  09:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Regular and irregular verbs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjugation (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) 14:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have put a little note in Talk about syllabic /n/, and would be glad to discuss how it should be handled in this article. RoachPeter (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know this is not an acceptable application of IAR. Ryan Vesey 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, it was a joke. (The bit about IAR I mean; he really had no business removing my comment, particularly since he had also commented after the discussion was "closed".) Victor Yus (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added no messages to the closed discussion. I typed a reply, took a telephone call from my sister, and returned to my computer to find that KumiokoCleanStart had closed the discussion before I could post it.

Conversely, your message is a reply to the closure.

You've disputed my assertion that "closed" means "closed". What, in your view, does it mean? "Open"? —

David Levy 20:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It means one person thinks the discussion's done, I suppose. Which doesn't mean others have to share that view. You no doubt know the Wiki laws better than I do, but I can't find any exception to the principle that you don't remove other people's comments, based on a discussion's having been "closed". Anyway, I've replaced the comment outside the closed discussion, so hopefully that will satisfy the bureaucracy. Victor Yus (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I happened to notice this valid comment on the phenomenon but alas it may be the norm now. Please add this to that list. Looks like a "sleeper plant" ... History2007 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am too lazy... was hoping you would do it... History2007 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I informed User:DeltaQuad. Victor Yus (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grammatical gender, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hindustani and See (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) 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in a previous discussion on

]

Edit Wars

Hi, Thanks for your attention to

]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National treasure 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(Click show ⇨)
"'National treasure' Andy Williams dies of bladder cancer at age 84"], www.foxnews.com, 2012-09-26]</ref>

Thanks,

]

Hello, I'm

.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as a direct object, gender-specific forms reappear in Spanish. The sentence ''I can't find it.'' (always referring to the masculine noun ''libro'' (book) would be ''No '''lo''' encuentro'', whereas

Thanks,

]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wendi Deng Murdoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star TV (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) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello Akearha123 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2013 there was a "

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

The vowels of STRUT and commA

Someone has challenged a line of content that you included here about the vowels of [ə], [ʌ] and [ɜː] in American English. It does seem suspect in its current form. I suspect that the passage from Wells is not referring to the NURSE vowel, but another allophone of STRUT, but I don't have access to that passage. Do you think you could help address this issue? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

]

Template:Notthe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simple past, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple past until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]