User talk:Sumanuil/Archive 6

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Michael Z. 22:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing of Caption under illustration on J.H. Scheltema entry

Dear Sumanuil, Thank you for putting that painting illustration back. I panicked when it disappeared. I am 80 now, get a bit confused but, was never 'properly' informed anyway on how to enter/change material on Wikipedia, but somehow managed some on this site. I own that painting and saw that one of the artist's letters (about 800, a huge collection, which I tracked down in The Netherlands and brought to Australia (originals in the SLV in Melbourne, with translation as far as finalized,) and translated them, almost finished) revealed that it was painted at Alphington (the artist added a hand drawn mud map showing from where he viewed the scene); it was then cleared land, now a Melbourne suburb), so I tried to add that location information to the title. Then it disappeared. You may know how to do that and could still do it. (The date of that source letter in the SLV is 18 April 1890), Regards,

Peter Reynders, 
Canberra 203.7.113.194 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up.

I saw your Notice on my Talk. Thank you so much for reminding me about the the sources that I forgot to add to my edit on the Kherson Oblast. I have corrected those mistakes and added back my original edit, with my sources and explanation included. I was planning on adding sources to all my edits, but realized I had a haircut appointment and got sidetracked. I appreciate you letting me know. BigRed606 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I love you!❤

Yums and (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Chahal was speedy-deleted

Hi there, I see Noor Chahal was speedy-deleted. I was the person who approved that article for creation a couple of days ago, and as far as I could see, there were pieces in Times India and The Hindu about the subject. These sources past the 'reliability' searches. Web searching provided extensive hits. So I didn't have concerns for notability. And at the time of approval, there not much puffery: it was pretty much a stub article. Copyvios was a small, correctable concern.

But it's gone. I have faith in the processes. Was there some sort of bait-and-switch perpetrated? Or was something missed? Any info gratefully received. Chumpih ^t 04:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It contained very little information beyond a list of works, and had been rejected at AFC seven times already. I figured if the creator wasn't going to fix it after that many rejections, it was a lost cause. Admittedly, it had two good sources, but is that enough? The Hindu article, for one, just seems like the kind of "local talent"/"human interest" story that my local paper publishes about ten of a week. Perhaps Noor Chahal will be notable one day, but for now, it seems premature. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Chumpih ^t 05:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake

Thank you, Sumanuil, for correcting the mistake I made in Sack of Baturyn. Not sure how I made such an egregious error as that; it certainly wasn't intentional. Radzy0 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me expand the giant's bio

Thank you for expanding on the bio of the giant from Memphis, I started his page in hopes that viewers will learn about their stories as a whole.SCPdude629 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Mery

Thanks for fixing the file name I inadvertently broke! Oblivy (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hello, Sumanuil,

Please remember to sign the comments you make in AFD deletion discussions so other editors don't have to look at the page history to see who wrote them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, but thanks for the reminder. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on fixing and correcting but do your research

I have decided to stop involving myself in Daniel Jeddman's work. For reverting my edits means you probably want to do better. It's much appreciated. Kindly do all your researches before touching article. You are a Christian as well and I hope your critique and values be in check for the betterment and improvement of Wikipedia. God bless you. Blackan007 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using preview - thanks

I (mostly) followed your advise for a solid week of work. I made some mistakes, but for the most part my changes were delivered in one edit. I once (only once) tested at eighty words per minute on a typewriter, although a more accurate figure for my best would have been 35 - 40. I now have Duparine's contractures and I am reduced to hunting and pecking on my laptop. My excuse for a LOT of typos. My experience bundling edits has been unfortunate. "Towns" in Wisconsin are much like townships, and the confusion has lead to many kinds of errors. Histories which apply to hamlets are often attributed to the 36 sq mile (avg) town. The template for some reason calls for the coordinates to be stated twice and very often one of those shown is for a village, CDC or "something." So a 36 sq mile town has two different sets of coordinates. Fortunately town coordinates are denominated as regions and CDCs, villages and communities are denominated as cities, so while it is difficult to determine just what the odd coordinates are for, it's easy to see that they are not for the town. My deletions of those coordinates was lumped into all the others. In Wisconsin, towns are referred to as "The Town of . . ." This is confusing to those who think a town is concentrated around a business district. And so the name of the town sounds illogical and clumsy. Those clarifications too got incorporated in my edits. The upshot is that my edits got reverted en masse and all my changes went with them. (did I mention a week of work?) Makes me wish that I had sent them separately so that each could have been considered on its merits, not ad hominem because of my sponsorship. Your suggestion was proper, well-intentioned and correct. Nevertheless, I regret following it. Topeka Sam (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Aboriginal syllabics

I don't know what you're looking at, but those sources quite obviously support the claim. In general, we prefer written RS's to self-published websites, esp. when not written by an expert in the field. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so one them (Dalby) seems to, now that I looked more closely. But in the other (Rutledge) the page cited is just a list of Sindhi syntax. Maybe I have the wrong edition? My objection was purely procedural anyway, becuause it wasn't entirely clear how the sources supported the statement, and POV editors have made my internal "fabricated source" alarm way too sensitive. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert it back? It took my eternity to fix those grammatical errors.

Why did you revert it back? It took me eternity to fix those grammatical errors. If i corrected link spellings, l am sorry. I can spell it as it was. This is not a vandalism! Tatius9119 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Show some respect, it took me a long time fixing those and l talked to other people to fix those issues. I have a long history on that page. Tatius9119 (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they weren't "grammatical errors", they were file names, reference titles, templates and quotes. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As l said, l will write those links back. I know l made a misstake. No, you are wrong. There were a lot of grammatical errors and spellings wrong. Tatius9119 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only misspelling I could find was one instance of "assiociated". "-ised" spellings are British, not wrong. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, l am sorry for calling you dude. Ckeck it thorughly now. I rewrote for clarity. Tatius9119 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont want me writing for clarity, then l stop. I thought our ´community were supposed to be friendly. Tatius9119 (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As l said, if you dont want me to edit that page just ask. But l want you to revert it to the first change l made on that page. I wrote about theodora and zenobia WITH sources. Thank you. Tatius9119 (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. I just wanted you to not fix what isn't broken. And I am hardly going to revert to a version where citation templates have been changed to "sitation". Add your addition back if you want, but don't add back your mistakes. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, l will rewrite the links as it was before my edut. Thank you:) Tatius9119 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, l decided to not revert it bacvk due to wrong synonyms l wrote. But l will add the texts l wrote earlier. Tatius9119 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing l want to say, i am sorry for misunderstanding you. You are doing a great job in preventing vandalism. I just added the first edit l made, just the newly writing about theodora and zenobia. You can check it out. My native language isnt english, it is swedish and aramaic. English is my third language, so you could understand why my english us bad. Sorry again, and have a good day. Tatius9119 (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]