This is an archive of past discussions with User:ONUnicorn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. This is my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message. I will respond on this page to keep the discussion in one place. I archive when I feel like it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)
Do you know how to make bots for Wikipedia?
Hi, I'm currently trying how to even make a bot for Wikipedia, so I was just wondering, do you know how to create one, and maybe even work one? -Coolpug05 — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eurolengo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English, Spanish and Leslie Jones. 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.
Hi there. Thanks for your edits on DeflateGate. I appreciate we probably just have different opinions on the boundaries of OR and RS, I thought that rather than debating the point on edit commentaries, let's try and talk out the various points on the Talk Page. I have put down my initial thoughts on the various points. Don't want to turn a small thing into a big thing, but let's try and find some consensus and move on. Thanks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I am just asking if we can colaborate together to make a page for Hammerton Killick in Simple English! Please comment on my talk page as soon as you can. Here's the link for the main page of Simple English Wikipedia simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page -Coolpug05
I was thinking, maybe we can share a google docs document with each other, copy and paste the article there, and edit it to simple english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolpug05 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
| on DYK pages
the | in your signature is breaking code. Everything after the | is not seen [1]. Can you please replace it by some other character in DYK pages.--RedtigerxyzTalk19:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I've reverted some of your recent edits to Homeopathy that changed the order of punctuation and quotation marks. Wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates that articles should use logical quotation - i.e. only including those punctuation marks that belong to the quoted material within quotation marks - regardless of what national variety of English is used in a given article. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow! How is it that I've never seen that before? I see the MOS has said that all the way since 2002, and has been consistent throughout 2006 and 2007 when I was first editing (though the current language and examples are much clearer than the old versions), yet I've never noticed that either in the MOS or in articles. Sorry to make so much work for you changing it all back - probably doesn't help that I was on my phone and for some reason talk pages and notifications only come in on a computer, not a mobile device, meaning I was working my way through the article off and on for a couple hours not realizing you were going around behind me changing it back. Oh well. Now I know for future. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving17:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Media conglomerate revert
Hey I am not sure why you reverted back to original (US Examples under Media Conglomerates) when it's factually incorrect. The Walt Disney Company is the biggest company by market capitalization (~181 billion USD 3/31/2015), not revenue (~48 billion USD FY 2014). Comcast, on the other hand, has the highest revenue (~69 billion USD FY 2014) and second largest market cap (~144 billion USD 3/31/2015). I reverted back to my change. If you want the Walt Disney Company to be listed as the first company in that sub section, you should change it completely so that it's reflected as market cap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndjo7189 (talk • contribs)
If you are asserting that the information I reverted to is incorrect, you need to provide a source for your assertions. The Forbes source cited in the article says what the other version says it says.
Your information may well be true, I don't know. And that's just the point. If you don't remove the Forbes source and cite a new reliable source for the new information we have no way of knowing, and what's worse, people will think that the Forbes source backs up what the article says. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving16:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Even the source for the original (Forbes' 2014 Fortune 500) lists Comcast as the 44th biggest company (2013 rank of 46th) with revenue of 65 billion USD revenue and the Walt Disney Company as the 61st biggest company (2013 rank of 66th) with 45 billion USD. There is no need to change the source altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndjo7189 (talk • contribs)
@Ndjo7189: The Forbes list has Walt Disney as 61 overall, but the biggest in the category of entertainment. You're right about Comcast being bigger at 44 biggest company, but Forbes categorizes them with the telcoms (in which case they are the third largest teleom).
I think the difference is what their primary business is. Disney, for example, has some resort and cruise line holdings, but people don't think of them as being in the hospitality industry. Likewise, Comcast has some media holdings, but they are still primarily a telecom, not a media conglomerate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving17:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is super vague and the change is getting reverted back to original by other users also. The lines of business in general are getting more and more vague as telecom is a lot about broadband internet and cable TV, which can easily be argued that it's media also. The VERY same company (Forbes) that distinguishes Comcast as a telecom and the Walt Disney Company as media states Comcast as the world's largest media company in 2014 in Global 2000 (and the Walt Disney as the second biggest) [[2]]. I'll put this as the main reference then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndjo7189 (talk • contribs)
What you said on my talk page makes NO sense, as the 3 Japanese companies (Kadokawa Dwango Corporation, The Mainichi Newspapers Group Holdings, & The Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings) in the "Other examples" listing in the media conglomerate article link to their respective articles on the Japanese Wikipedia. Plus, it could be said that if you think the company needs an article on the English Wikipedia, then why don't you create it? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@76.235.248.47:Eh, I do see that now that you point it out, that there are others there that are set up as interwiki links instead of red links. I had just noticed that the past several edits had consisted of you saying you weren't sure of the correct format for the link and changing the red link to an interwiki link, then being reverted. I assumed you didn't know/understand what a red link was, and thought it meant something was broken, so I left a note on your talk page which I hoped would be helpful to you. At any rate, what exactly are you trying to accomplish on that page regarding that link? Perhaps I or someone else can be helpful if we know what you're trying to do. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving03:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to the "Existing red links" section on the Red link page:
Using the interlanguage link template {{ill}}; for example, {{ill|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}} shows Sigmund Jakobsen [no], {{ill|ja|Nobuo Ina|伊奈信男}} shows Nobuo Ina [ja]; When the English article is created, the other language link won't be shown: {{ill|bg|Parlichevo|Пърличево}} shows Parlichevo.
Explicitly including the language tag in front of the article name; for example, the article Highway location marker has a short section on Dutch highway route markers with a reference to the Dutch-language article nl:Hectometerpaal.
Or, according to the "Inline links" section on the Interlanguage links page:
Links between English Wikipedia pages and corresponding pages in the Wikipedias of other languages are handled via Wikidata; they are displayed in the "Languages" bar to the left of the article. If it is desired to include, in some article, a link to a topic that is not covered by an article on the English Wikipedia but that does have a page in another language version of Wikipedia, then there are three possible approaches:
Use a red link pointing to a possible future article on the English Wikipedia;
Use an interlanguage link pointing to the existing article on the other Wikipedia, as described in the next section;
Use {{ill}}, {{ill2}}, or {{ill-WD}} to show both a redlink and an interlanguage link (ill and ill-WD will both hide the interlanguage link should the redlink turn blue).
The advantage of the first approach is that the red link informs readers that the page does not exist locally, thus inviting its creation, and avoiding directing readers to a page that many of them will not understand. The disadvantage is that it conceals the existence of the foreign-language page, which might in itself be of interest to some readers, and may also be valuable to anyone wishing to create a corresponding English Wikipedia article.
It is sometimes possible to combine the two approaches, giving a local red link in addition to an interlanguage link explicitly marked as such. For example: "...the plans were drawn up by German architect Hans Knoblauch (de)..." The templates {{ill}}, {{ill2}}, and {{ill-WD}} are designed to assist this combined approach.
If a red link is not appropriate locally for whatever reason, such as because the subject does not appear to be notable, then linking a page in another language may be useful.
So, I had figured that, concerning the 1 Spanish & 3 Japanese media companies, the easiest solution to the red links problem was to link to the companies' articles on the Spanish & Japanese Wikipedias, as I was unaware of whether or not there were articles on the English Wikipedia that already covered/mentioned those 4. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I had considerably condensed it with the edit where I removed the condense tag. I was working on the bare URLs thing when I ran into an edit conflict again with you putting the condense tag back on when I'd already "fixed" the problem. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving17:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
rarely does anyone ever outline the messiness of the game of parallel articles like the two Tasmanian forest articles, and how it came about... - messiness indeed, thanks for the effort, it can give a view of what is going on so much easier... and support for a very careful merge... User:JarrahTree15:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did here. It just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks. PamD19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you reverted my edit calling it an unexplained content removal when my edit summary pointed to the talk page where I had explained my reasons for removing said content. Let's discuss its use as a nickname or a slogan on the article talk page where such discussions belong. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving21:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
StBlark is continuing to refuse to accept your support for the position that Rosaline should be included in the article. I do not know where on Wikipedia I should go next to get the involvement of other editors to put an end to this matter. It would seem that asking for another 3rd opinion is not the place to go, but I do not know what the next step should be. Clearly StBlark is going to continue to be insistent on this despite now two editors saying that the example clearly should stand, so I presume someone on an administrative level is needed. If you could direct me to where I should take this matter I would appreciate it. 99.192.93.3 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 99.192.92.80 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Just in case you are interested. I have mentioned your involvement and so you might want to check the discussion just to be sure it has been characterized accurately. 99.192.92.80 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am blocked from moving articles from my user space, but you can move Charles Augustus Rosenheimer Campbell to main Wikipedia space to add more to it. I probably create two or three new articles a week based on the Library of Congress Bain photo collection. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your improvements to the Reza Shariffi article, to serve Wikipedia and its readers. Thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q.14:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
