User talk:MSincccc

Archives

Feb 2022–April 2024
April 2024-present

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by 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.

Archives: 1, 2: 20 days

Your GA nomination of Mark Zuckerberg

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]

Short descs

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]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Please explain why this edit was made. What makes links "unnecessary"? ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, some of the sources(BBC News, The Guardian, etc.) were linked multiple times which constitutes overlinking. Also, quite a number of them were not linked at all. Thus, as you can see, the linking was inconsistent and it was hence unnecessary. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at MOS:LINKONCE, which states that "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". If an article had no links at all, and someone added a link to say, San'yō-Onoda, would you revert that change because it ruins the consistency? I think not; articles should have links. Please self revert. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamitsu Note: I have restored your revision.

I can't see the rationale behind

linking the same source used in some of the citations and not doing so for the other citations at the same time.

If an article had no links at all, and someone added a link to say, San'yō-Onoda, would you revert that change because it ruins the consistency? I think not; articles should have links.

As to this comment of yours, I can't see why articles should not have links. I never objected to that.

The point of discussion is sources having blue links and more specifically, all of them having it rather than just a select few.

Looking forward to your response and any future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamitsu Since you were the one to start this conversation, I would like to ensure that we are cleared from both ends and that there exists no ambiguity with regards to the above. Also, hopefully we can collaborate in the future. Do reach out if you need any assistance. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Apologies for the late response -- I have a script that prevents me from using talk pages late in the evening. If you'd like to collaborate, for the past while I've been thinking about creating an article for the 1986 royal tours, specifically the part of New Zealand, where for some reason the Queen got some eggs thrown on her. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vogue, Insider and Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]