User talk:WiHkibew

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Note: Please place new sections at the bottom of the page.

Help for Vandalism on Graceling[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I said on the talk page: ":Even worse if you ask me. I think I might delete it. Edits were by 50.68.3.199 after 97.118.175.71 deleted plot (and some character descriptions). I think it's vandalism, but I don't know if I should get someone else to report it instead... Not that I know how to. § WiHkibew (talk) § 03:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

So what I do? I know how to revert vandalism... but I think I should report it or tell the user (97.118.175.71). Is there a template or something? Should I just leave the user alone? I don't think so. § WiHkibew (talk) § 03:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I constantly ask for help. -_-; § WiHkibew (talk) § 03:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits might have been from a person who thought that those sections weren't useful or well-written, instead of being actual vandalism - it's important to assume good faith. Since you considered those sections useful, putting them back was a reasonable next step, and that's all you have to do, especially since the edits removing those sections happened months ago (November). But in general, check out Wikipedia:Vandalism for guidance. It says: "Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings." Dreamyshade (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot! I'll try to look at Wikipedia:Vandalism. § WiHkibew (talk) § 04:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BC and B.C.[edit]

Re [1]. Just to let you know, it is mandated in WP:ERA that our house style is no periods. Spinning Spark 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry... I'm pretty new here. I don't know many of the rules and stuff. § WiHkibew (talk) § 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know about the rules is that there are too many of them. Nobody knows all of it. Don't worry about it, just carry on editing. Spinning Spark 06:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is a late reply, but I realized that I probably should reply only when it was too late. § WiHkibew (talk) § 04:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

Hi! I noticed that your recent revisions to the page Walk Two Moons introduced some grammatical errors. You removed some words that you believed, as per your comments, to be unnecessary. However, these words were in fact necessary. By removing them, you changed the tense of some of the phrases from the present perfect tense to the past tense. This is incorrect in the context of the summary. I have reverted to the text as it was before you edited it.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this grammatical issue.

Emmawoodhouse91 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your policies are since you don't mention it on your talk page, and this is an extremely late response (okay, that is stretching it a bit). I'm just going to put a Talkback template on your talk page. Anyway.... That was a bit irrelevant.

So. Actually, although I mainly do grammar edits and things like that, I don't know much about the rules of grammar and stuff like that. I think I was right about the present past thing though. Maybe. I guess it sounded too in-universeish (yes, that is not a word), but... You know what, I don't know, and I'm seriously rambling way too much. But still. The "has" kinda still makes it like an in-universe style of writing. Could you explain rules about present perfect tense and past tense before I am entirely sure? And the dash punctuation part... well, I am 98.9999999etc.% sure I was right because without the dashes and the stuff between, there would be a comma. So it makes sense that there still would be one although ~~there are dashes / there is~~ dashes are involved. I'm sorry I tortured you with that long blob of words. § WiHkibew (talk) § 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

You might want to read the following online articles about the present perfect tense: [[2]] and [[3]]. I've already referred you to the Wikipedia article on the subject, which explains that the present perfect is used when describing a past action that has present consequences. The summary is written in the present tense; thus the present perfect is the appropriate tense for describing actions that have occurred before the time during which the novel is taking place.

Regarding the dash versus the commas: The dashes are used to set off the phrase "the novel's denouement" from the rest of the sentence. It is correct as it currently is, and was incorrect after you had edited it. For further details, see the first numbered item in [[4]], which explains that dashes are used "[t]o set off parenthetical material that you want to emphasize; in other words, if you want to include information that is not absolutely necessary in forming a complete sentence but that is important to the idea you are communicating, introduce this information into the main sentence between dashes." The article gives an example: Her taste in music–from country to rap–exemplifies her eclectic personality.

I understand the desire to correct ungrammatical articles, but what is the point of introducing grammatical errors into articles that are grammatically correct?

Emmawoodhouse91 (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did read them, but I wanted to see what you would about them. The sentences with the present perfect tense do not really need it. The events happened in the past of the book, so they don't need "has" or "have." I did understand that the summary was written in present tense, but present perfect tense is used for when it has an effect. Most things technically have an effect, but it really depends on the sentences. In those particular sentences, they could have gone without the "has"s and "have"s. Please reread my edit; I don't think they sound bad at all. Of course, I doubt you like mine anyway. I think you need a better reason why they need to be in present perfect tense. They can say one thing happened without saying something has happened.

That example for the dashes is different; it does not have a dash at the end of a dependent clause with information not absolutely necessary for completing the sentence at the end. That sounds confusing, but I mean that the sentence has a different situation. I feel that my edit was fine. If the dependent clause has dashes, you end the dependent with commas, regardless of whether there are dashes or not. That is my interpretation. Your example has no dependent clause at the beginning; the only one is the one between the dashes, and that doesn't count.

I understand the intent to correct others, but you really should not be so rude. I'm sorry if I sounded rude because I tend to unintentionally sound rude and angry. Sorry for the late response. I was trying to take a break. § WiHkibew (talk) § 04:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a bot...[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

If you have a bot archiving your talk page, is there a way you can "lock" something to keep it from being archived? § WiHkibew (talk) § 05:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you just edit it and add a new signature/timestamp it should work for most, if not all bots that archive based on time. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant whether you could keep it from being archived forever. I know it won't be archived instantaneously. § WiHkibew (talk) § 05:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you have Misza's bot archiving your page. Just substitute the following template into whatever thread you don't want archived: {{DNAU}}. Read more about archiving here. Hope that helps! Cheers, m.o.p 05:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! § WiHkibew (talk) § 05:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Feel free to let us know if you have any other questions. m.o.p 05:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]