User talk:Neils51

Thanks it’s fixed now

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.235.91 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neils51, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see that you have massively been changing "amount" to "number" in a large amount of cases, just citing "grammar" as your edit summary. Could you point out in how far "amount" is improper grammar? Lordtobi (✉) 15:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Hi Lordtobi, what an excellent question and thanks for noticing! Basically, ‘number’ is used with countable nouns and ‘amount’ with non-countable nouns. For example, you mentioned, an 'amount of cases'. The cases are countable so that should be 'number of cases'. There is one typical exception and that is with money. We speak of an ‘amount’ of money. Technically I suppose it is ‘usage’ however I would consider usage to come under the ‘grammar’ umbrella term.

There are a number of references that you can use that discuss correct usage. A quick synopsis from the Cambridge Dictionary may be found here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/amount-of-number-of-or-quantity-of Many of the competent style guides are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide A discussion on mass nouns here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun For example; there is an amount of cutlery on the table which is made up of a number of knives and forks. A discussion here on ‘number’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity (refer the section; ‘Quantity in Natural Language’) and ‘amount’ usage is also discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_with_disputed_usage Neils51 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot change it when it is a part of a quote. It the person being quoted said "amount", we can't change the quote. Please be more careful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Oops! I missed those quote marks! Thanks for the pickup. Neils51 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Well done, for going above and beyond, on fixing a mountain of spelling and copy mistakes on the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung article. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thank you Scope creep. Much appreciated! Neils51 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would be very grateful if you could accept the changes in the Polish artist's profiles Paweł Kowalewski. Thank you for your help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojdobrzejuz (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51, Merry Christmas to you and your family. I hope you have a great New Year. scope_creep (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal, and I respect your differing opinion on hours being a countable noun, but quantities that are non-integers are normally expressed as "amount of", rather than "number of" (similarly for "less than" vs "fewer than"). In the case of dive logs, most dives last less than an hour, so total time is accumulated in minutes and will either be expressed as something like "5.3 hours" or "5 hours 18 minutes", and so on. Once fractions are part of the quantity being measured, the idea of 1 hour, 2 hours, etc. goes out of the window. Nevertheless, I'm happy with your last edit, as we can both agree that time isn't a countable noun. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	German Barnstar of National Merit
	For your work with editor Scope creep on Ferdinand Feichtner, the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany awards you the German Barnstar of National Merit. Sehr gut! Vami_IV✠ 00:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 06:18, Thursday, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hello. I removed the {{contrib-ta1}} tag you'd placed on an article. The contrib-xx1 tags are intended for placement on users' talk pages, not on articles. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: thanks for that. I see the article has been deleted, which is as should be. Neils51 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:As of#"As at". 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message about handball/King Ping. I do have an account, but usually edit as an IP address, because receiving alerts about reversions like the one in question is too depressing. 101.164.149.18 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake. That's what everyone is calling him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.192.246 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@210.18.192.246: Hi, and thanks for the feedback. Even if it is quite common to apply this nickname (not one that I would want), it still needs to be referenced or sourced. Do you know of a suitable source that can be referenced? Neils51 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user changed "deliver" everywhere I had used it to "receive". Is that better? Not clear. "Deliver" is the verb used in the Defago, Schiper, and Urban paper (reference 2) in defining Total Order Broadcast, and I followed that. More precisely, Defago, et al state the conditions in terms of "TO-Deliver" (Total Order-Deliver) and it is a technical term for them. Whether "TO-Deliver" is closer to plain old "deliver" or to plain old "receive", I will have to think over. As someone who has actually implemented distributed computing systems, including Atomic Broadcast, my inclination is towards "deliver", because it seems to capture the essential point of "receiving the broadcast and committing it" better than just "receive". Also, since the TO conditions in the article are cited to the Defago paper, maybe we should be using the terminology of the paper. Don't you think? By the way, you seem to be setting yourself up as some kind of arbiter of who knows enough to be editing this article, and threatening to revert if I don't satisfy you. This is, "shall we say", somewhat on the obnoxious side. Might want to work on your wording a little, if you make a regular habit of this. So thanks for the "opportunity" to respond, but when did I start being responsible to you? Person54 (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spent hours today improving the article on Toastmasters. Amiably asking: what was it that bothered you? Metaphysics Man (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaphysics Man: Hi Metaphysics Man. I think you have me confused with someone else. Perhaps Jytdog. Neils51 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this came to my email in the last hour:

The Wikipedia page Toastmasters International has been changed on 30 August 2018 by Neils51, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toastmasters_International for the current revision. Metaphysics Man (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaphysics Man: Not odd at all. I suggest you review the article revision history. Neils51 (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Neils51 made this edit. User:Metaphysics Man, in your preferences (see Special:Preferences) you probably have the box checked next to "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" and possibly also the box below that that says "Email me also for minor edits of pages and files". Checking those boxes causes the system to send an email to you; no person is intending to send you such emails. If you uncheck the boxes you will stop getting those emails. They are just notifications. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you improved the article with an update. Cool. Are you by any chance the author of this article? Wanted feedback about the spelling of the word programme used in the article. Is that valid in British English? Should it be used here? Also, the word organisation is used twice; once in the "Public speaking championship" and once in the "Education" section. Elsewhere in the article it is spelled with a z. Shouldn't it be spelled with a Z as organization in all instances? In the paragraph headed "Speeches" the word organised is used with the "s" not the "z". I would change it but I'm edit-shy; still bruised after having over two focused hours of work undone by Jytdog for apparently valid reasons. I had added for example that "Ralph C. Smedley served as educational director for the YMCA" I thought that was a pertinent bit of history in encyclopedic fashion rather than a brag or promotion for the organization. Thanks for communicating. Metaphysics Man (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaphysics Man: No, I am not the author, however I am a member of Toastmasters International, and perhaps you are as well. As the organisation is based in USA then it is sensible that American English is used. 'Programme', 'organisation', 'organised' are British spellings and should be changed (for this article). When an article is created and it is desired to use other than USA spelling then one of the spelling selection templates should be used in the head of the article. An example template here: template EngvarB. Note that even when these templates are in place some editors don't see them or ignore them and then want to change word spelling. If you see such activity, when a language template is in place, then it is reasonable to revert these edits (with explanation as to reason).

Your reference to, "Ralph C. Smedley served as educational director for the YMCA" would seem to be historical information, suitable for the article. I would suggest doing small changes at a time, such as this, ensuring that you can provide a reference, which can be difficult with this topic as there are few secondary sources.

I understand why originally a lot of information was removed from the article back in May however not overly impressed with the way in which it was conducted. Thanks for endeavouring to make Wikipedia a better place!

Thanks for the message. While I can understand there might be a need for clarification I think the link to 'Juggling Records' provides this adequately. Go to that article which is linked under Anthony Gatto and Albert Lucas and the first sentence gives a clear summary with more explanation later in the article Robynthehode (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robynthehode: Yes I reviewed those entries before my note, so hence I understood your revert. I feel however that the sentence syntax is confusing and needs revision. Each page should stand alone in terms of coherency of the information it is presenting and should not require reference to another page to remove sentence confusion. Neils51 (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If any change is to made it must be brief. How about 'holds various number juggling world records.' (removing world's greatest juggler section because there is no source for who considers him to be the world's greatest juggler). Robynthehode (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robynthehode: It's better. Neils51 (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with that change please make the changes in both entries in the article. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Nguyenngocngan8 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nguyenngocngan8:. Looked at this a while ago and looks good. Anything in particular that you might like assistance with? Have material to add?

Regards Neils51 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of mythological pairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I notice you made an edit on a page where added a paragraph which summarize a unit action the during the Korean conflict. I don't think this goes to that page. Corpusfury (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Corpusfury: Hi Corpusfury, I see that in December I did make some style and grammar related edits to a section previously added by 'Ekim school'. You may like to follow the talk page of the article and engage in a discussion with the Korean Military History working group. My knowledge of the article subject is rather limited. Neils51 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering how changing № to No. can be considered a spelling/typo issue when the numero sign article itself utilises №? Also, what's wrong with №? DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DynamoDegsy. AWB picked this up, not sure why. There may be recommendations around usage of numero. My standard text was related to the next entry item. Have reverted. Neils51 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit odd as the use of № in the articles I've initiated goes back years. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here; [1]. Neils51 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51, How do you fancy doing a copyedit on the above article. It is not a military article but it is a good size. scope_creep^Talk 22:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope creep. No prob, can do. I'll be away for the next week and unlikely to have much in the way of internet access, so can pickup when I get back. Neils51 (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No language pick scope creep? It will become 'Americanized' over time.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of home appliances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Receiver (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!!
Thank you
 Thanks

Thank you so much for your edit here. This 'issue' has been ongoing since at least 2015 at any page related in any way to the Pakistani nuclear weapons program/s, including BLPs and weapons testing pages.

Unfortunately it's quite possible the editor will revert you, re-edit/ rewrite or delete the sections where you removed all the useless link piping etc. I was in the middle of writing a very long message on their Talkpage, here, pointing out some of their 'unhelpful' editing habits, and suggesting they not do certain things, when I noticed your edit. I have left many messages on that talk-page, which have been overwhelmingly ignored.

I've been doing this type of 'clean-up' manually. I gotta get me some of that sweet, sweet WP:AutoWikiBrowser.
Warmest regards, 220 of ^Borg 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220, thanks for your note. I think many people get editing without checking out the Manual of Style and there is a lot of stuff there. The AutoWikiBrowser is definitely a useful tool for repetitive work. It takes a bit of time to get used to it and understand what it can do for you. Happy to share some tips and tricks. Also absolutely check its suggested edits. Nine times out of ten (even better) they are fine. In the time I have been using it I have never known it to screw up with link fixes. All the best. Neils51 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what I'm editing right now? (Just had an edit conflict with them!) After your fixes, and more by me, they want right ahead and did these edits. Doing the same silly, annoying and IMHO plain stupid things we fixed. Eg. Had "rocky" linked to the Geology of the Rocky Mountains, a US mountain range! Re-adding "of" to "May 1978" or similar, here

Remember they were also editing this way 5 years ago. Then FeatherPluma (talk · contribs) helped out and we actually got a few, rare, replies. Unfortunately 'Pluma' got blocked. At the very least I see ownership issues; competency, in some areas of English grammar at least; non-communication; and possibly worse issues. I was likely going to seek support, or assistance at WikiProject Pakistan, or related physics pages, even Admin help, then you happened.
• Isn't this now in the area of WP: Disruptive editing? I'd also appreciate your views if it seems I am getting overly … 'annoyed'. 220 of ^ßorg 08:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. Five years ago, see the list of messages I left on their talk-page, User_talk:PeerBaba#June_2015. 220 of ^ßorg 11:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they are continually getting messages re links to disambiguation pages, so don't appear to be learning or perhaps not checking their work. The poor link creation technique is not exactly what I would call disruptive editing however if you legitimately point out faulty editing and the behaviour continues then you may have a case for disruptive editing. Maybe worth having an administrator's opinion. Perhaps starting a discussion here may assist. If the Teahouse is not the place then you will be pointed in the right direction. Neils51 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking into account the spirit of the guideline, I don't think it is worth adding complicated templates to fix insignificant minor mistakes. Also I think it is more important to preserve mistakes in a direct quote, and I don't think it is important to preserve mistakes in a citation title. Maybe there's another guideline more specific to references that is more appropriate but I don't see why the same principle wouldn't apply (and there's always WP:IAR). -- 109.79.65.28 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when you corrected the spelling in the quote on the 20th Armored Division page. It took me a bit to track down [[MOS:QUOTE]]. I have no problem with the change or the policy, but if you could reference [[MOS:QUOTE]] in the edit summary should you correct a quote again, you might save someone else a few minutes! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Sorry about that. Usually I wouldn't first time up however I missed the fact that I had visited this before. Neils51 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51, many thanks for correcting and fixing vocabulary/grammar errors in the article Gravity Noir, really appreciated. Trix18365 (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trix18365, no prob, you're welcome. The article is coming along well. Well done. Neils51 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. "Revert back" is used in the AllMusic review, which is used as a ref via the star score. Either we use "[...]" somehow to avoid quoting that part at all, or leave it uncorrected. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I noticed that some of your recent edits using AWB (e.g. Skyscraper and Island of Bryan) have the unfortunate side-effect of moving Short Description below hatnotes, in violation of MOS:ORDER. This is an AWB genfix mistake, which was corrected soon after the 6.1.0.1 release last November, but not yet released as a binary. It's annoying to fix these manually, and I have built a binary from the latest sources if you're interested. See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. David Brooks (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, happy to take on your private build. How do you want to do it, email, link? Neils51 (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtuCZY0YF4hGordTv9R8vbJEJvWTKg, which is structured like an official release minus plugins. It's built from the most recent official AWB source. Enjoy! David Brooks (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I manually reverted part of your spelling fix on the page B. R. Ambedkar. Reverted Bandboxes to Navboxes under External Links. Bandboxes was broken - I'm not sure if the edit was intentional or if there was a typo in the template name that caused it to break. Feel free to modify it to whatever your intended template was. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ujwal.Xankill3r: Hi, thanks for the fix, no, my intention was only the typo. Not sure how that happened, fat fingers probably. Regards Neils51 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is anitha evicted? How do you know? Aari army (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aari army Day 84. Merry Christmas. Neils51 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Neils51, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

May Jesus Christ bless you and your loved ones on this day. Merry Christmas!RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Hello Neils51, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 11:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I get you assistance in uploading certain articles on Wikipedia that ands on the Wikipedia web yet Fideliaduker (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @Fideliaduker: What did you have in mind? Neils51 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to publish an article on an investment banking firm in NIGEIRA Fideliaduker (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I send the article to you for review and ask if you can upload it for me Fideliaduker (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fideliaduker - Why would you not do this yourself? Neils51 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will try but if I face a hurdle can I get your assistance Fideliaduker (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fideliaduker, suggest start with a draft. Please have a go at reading the Manual of Style, unfortunately few editors do. If being paid for creating the article then you need to declare. Also be aware of requirements around notability. There is perhaps nothing more distressing for an editor than to work on an article for a number of years and then see it deleted on 'notability' grounds. Once your draft is completed you can submit for review or ask that it be reviewed. Neils51 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fideliaduker (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For excellent copyediting. scope_creepTalk 11:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: - Many thanks! Neils51 (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your copyedit on the article National Incident Management System. I am working on writing the article and I would like to submit is for good article status, but I was wondering if you would copy edit it for me. I have one more section to write and then it shoul be ready. Thanks. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 14:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairie Astronomer: Sure, I can take a look. Suggest flesh it out as much as you can. Neils51 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just an FYI that when a bot reverts a users edit for vandalism it also gives the user a warning on its talk page so there is no need for another warning. Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils! I noticed you've been working on one of my articles, doing the necessary corrections. I wrote on this WikiProject Grammar without much hope, since right after I noticed the Project seemed inactive. At any case it's great that somebody did check it. I was looking for help, avoiding overloading the Guild of Copyeditors. I also tried addressing your question on the talk page.--Gunt50 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gunt50:, happy to help. I have the Grammar page on my watchlist. A couple of minors to attend to and should be good! Neils51 (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neils51:,

I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I saw that you made a contribution to a similar article and was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :)
Will take a look, though at first glance looks good. Don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes, "~~~~". Neils51 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Neils! You corrected some time ago one of my articles, which you find on the Wikiproject Grammar discussion page. Recently I expanded the articles Andacollo, Neuquén and Chimpay. They're looking good, but I'm afraid they may need some ce done. As I don't want to go to the Guild of Copyeditors (it's not that serious, since I'm not GA nominating or so), I don't know where to look for help. It'd be nice if you could take a look. In case you can't, I'd certainly appreciate to know (also if you can, for next time) where can I post this articles to have a basic correction without turning to the Guild. Thanx in advance!--Gunt50 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gunt50:, I'll take a look. Best I can suggest is the Teahouse, although it tends to be for generic help (Q&A) and is not a list I monitor. I suppose it comes down to what individual editors are monitoring. Perhaps start a movement for an area where posts can be made for general editing/copyedit assistance! The Teahouse supports an Article Improvement list however that seems to be aimed at articles where editors want support for additional content. There are some really helpful admins that may be able to suggest something. Neils51 (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Neils! I noticed you have been working on my recent articles, so I wanted to thank you for taking the time! I'll look around for more options when it comes to correcting next time I re-write/edit an article like those.--Gunt50 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I award you this Barnstar for your unstopping effort in combating and correcting typos, punctuation and grammar. You are an absolute godsend and I wish you luck in your future Wikipedia endeavors. Okrados (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Okrados:. Much appreciated!

Thank you kindly for your editing on Neural Darwinism. Apparently I'm consistently spelling the same words wrong and my browser spell check is lousy! Your edits are helpful Sir! Much appreciated! Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jtwsaddress42, no prob. You have quite a workload and congratulations on making educational and worthy additions to the Wiki. Errors are part of the edit process. What may help is creating the initial text in an environment that has a suitable spellchecker and/or grammar check function. I use Word for this (or Outlook). Neils51 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of least used train stations of Great Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Accessdate and access-date are mainly synonymous in Wikipedia. Quetzal1964 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quetzal1964: there is a bit of history to this. There was a push last year to remove all the non-hyphenated citation parameters (double words, eg; access-date, archive-date, etc). A bot was being used to make gross updates to implement the replacement hyphenated parameters, however there was some pushback. Looking at the majority of the complaints it was mostly people upset at their watchlists ‘being triggered’. To my mind it would have made sense to throttle the bot however it was removed. Today I doubt that you will find any of the citation documentation (CS1, etc) mentioning the non-hyphenated parameters. Let me know if you do find a mention. The original parameters have not been deprecated however I expect that will happen in time, as attrition and editor edits remove the old parameters. Personally I support the changes and will update the undocumented non-hyphenated parameters to their documented hyphenated replacements when making other edits. - Neils51 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that if an editor (unaware the first char is not case sensitive) has created a wiki link along the lines of [[Abcde|abcxde]] and the second entry is a typo that AWB moves to 'abcde' then the result is [[Abcde|abcde]] which is a candidate for [[abcde]], however AWB (general fixes) doesn't perform the two actions, only the first. Could this be resolved by script reordering? - Neils51 (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neils51: I believe I requested this in 2013. GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GoingBatty:, that's pretty much it. I did initially have a look at Phabricator however my search terms gave me hundreds of results. Looks like it's the workaround for now :-) - Neils51 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neils51: You couldn't copyedit Karl Giering and this Antonia Lyon-Smith if you have some time, could you. Giering was bit of a monster and I was wondering if that was stopping folk doing it. Giering has been tagged for more than a month, more likely just demand for services. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep, no prob. - Neils51 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats cool. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spelling correction, but because chapter title contains "Comparitive," I put "Comparitive [sic]" in the reference. Man1t0ba (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Man1t0ba, thanks for the pickup I missed that. I have however replaced your [sic] with a template. You can find how to use the template here - Neils51 (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Maleme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 21st Battalion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Neils51 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neils51: Do you have any time to take a look at Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Korotkov. Its probably got a lot mistakes in it. scope_creep^Talk 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:, no prob, just have to make a repair to my fence and I'll be back. - Neils51 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio. I was doing the same, putting in new fence posts before winter, about six weeks ago. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51 - humourous is a perfectly acceptable British/Commonwealth spelling, as per WP:ENGVAR - Please stop "correcting" it - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay, incorrect, it is a common typo. Name your competent sources please. Neils51 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked above - Arjayay (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay, I'll repeat and clarify. Name a competent source that states that 'humourous' is a correct spelling and not a typo. It is a myth that 'humourous' is correct or even a variant. The correct spelling is 'humorous', always has been and always will be, on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere in the English speaking world. It is a typically English typo as the English spelling of 'humour', requires change to create the correctly spelled 'humorous'. In the US it is rarely spelled incorrectly as when the US accepted many of Noah Webster's proposed changes to the English language, adding 'ous' to 'humor' was a no-brainer. Note that the Typo Team has the entry correct in the H' list here. This is a far better resource if you want a quick check of spelling 'correctness'. Please refrain from pointing anyone to Wiktionary as a 'competent source'. Neils51 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the Cambridge Dictionary definition of "humour" in my recent reversion of your addition of sic to a quote that includes the word "humourous" [2], but further review of the Cambridge Dictionary indicates this does not apply to "humorous" [3]. While I can see general support online for the existence of the word "humourous", the Oxford Dictionary cited by Wiktionary seems to confirm it is an error, so I will revert and also suggest that further discussion of this issue occur on the article Talk page. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beccaynr, the Cambridge Dictionary entry you quoted is quite correct, there is no entry for the misspelling 'humourous'. If you use your favourite search engine and look for "recieved", you will find 10X (20m) the 'support' for this spelling, however that many 'typos' doesn't make it correct. Neils51 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51, yes, that is why I restored your addition of the sic template. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!!
	Hello Neils51, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 00:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mubariz Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bahadur Shah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, J6 happened in September 2021. Did I miss it? 2603:9001:5615:F700:A966:ACBD:26CF:38CB (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, used what turned out to be a US source, mea culpa! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd49. No prob! Have a great day! Neils51 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will teach me to copy and paste my sources without chcking them for typos. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith-264, another of those many words and word pairs that a spelling verifier won't pickup. So far, around 200 instances. Here is my regex if you are a tool user.\b(?<=Department of |Controller of |Printing (?:and |& )|[Mm]ajesty['’`]s |H\. M\. |HM )([sS])tationary\b replace=$1tationeryNeils51 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hiding my blushes.Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your material is excellent. Some stuff I have seen is almost unintelligible, however everyone is making a contribution :-) Neils51 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neils51, thank you very much for your spelling corrections in the article Lucas Dillon (judge). There were quite a few very bad ones. Thanks again! You have greatly improved the article—But, still being a beginner in this game, compared to your experience and standing, I do not understand your change of the name of the infobox from "Judge" to "Officeholder". I took "Infobox Judge" straight from the official documentation. Is there some guideline that clarifies when or when not to use such alternative names (like also "Infobox MP")? I thought "Judge" was nore appropriate in this case. Also, I do not understand why you change {{Cite book}} to {{cite book}} but leave {{Cite encyclopedia}} in uppercase. Why should the lowercase form be preferred with {{cite book}}? IMHO I would have thought that template names would all better start with an uppercase letter as some of them are awkward to use in all-lowercase, e.g. {{CSS image crop}} (and other templates starting with CSS) and {{TOC limit}}. I would be keen to learn from you what is correct or good usage and why. With many thanks and best regards, Joes Schade (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade, thank you, and you have some good questions there. Firstly the change from "Judge" to "Officeholder" is a function of AWB genfixes. "Officeholder" is the parent template and there are a lot of redirects, one of which includes "Judge". Refer to WP:AWB/TR for the full list of AWB template redirect targets. I endeavoured to find the original discussion around the reasoning however only found bits and pieces and I admit it is 'strange' when pages such as this exist. It's regarded as a cosmetic change and I suspect performance related. Perhaps @Rjwilmsi: may be able to expand on reasoning?

Many of the fixes provide by AWB are intended to apply best practice found in the WP:MoS though changes can be cognisant of the editor's intentions (eg., template 'CN' is expanded as 'Citation needed' and 'cn' becomes 'citation needed'). The changes you have seen such as 'cite book' etc, are mine on the basis that they move the template spelling to the 'native' form expressed in the MOS documentation for that item. Why? I suppose it's my background in that as a performance analyst for a period where machine cycles were precious such things mattered. A while ago there was an essay on Wiki performance, since taken down, that did point out, with evidence, that the documented native forms of all templates was preferable from a performance point of view. The message though to editors these days is don't worry about such editing trivia, concentrate on the content (the corollary is, if such became an issue, Wikipedia would throw more horsepower at it). From a personal point of view I would agree with you and suggest/argue that the native form of all templates should be with a capped first character. I have never had feedback on moving 'citation needed' to 'Citation needed' which is the documented native form (I wonder ;-). I have had editors go through after one of my edits and change all the caps on say 'cite' templates, however not going to argue, that's their choice and they have decided they 'own' the article. Some have expressed a requirement for 'consistency' and made all lowercase or all uppercase. Note that in some areas there are requests to consider performance, creating regex scripts for AWB being one of them! My list is a subset however happy to add {{Cite encyclopedia}} to it :-) As a final point I would say that sticking with MoS documented practice is correct and good usage. Happy editing! Neils51 (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Neils51. Wikipedia documentation and guidelines are inconsistent in the capitalisation of templates, e.g. WP:CITE uses Cite book as well as cite book. I hate working with such untidy code, but as User:Gog the Mild remarked "I have no interest in producing tidy code and, thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't require me to. Just to produce 'tidy' text." I fear I will have to get used to it. Coding in Wikipedia is quite different from writing code in C or Java. AWB Genfixes thus has even more problems than what I already knew (Phabricator task T236729 “Genfixes removes comma from quoted date”). With many thanks for your explanations, and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please run the tool once again on Stray cow. I had to force my edits in due to the edit conflict that was too difficult to resolve. Sorry for the trouble. Venkat TL (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL, thanks for the heads-up, nothing picked up, looks good from that point of view. Neils51 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for checking. After you, @BuySomeApples did a copy editing of the entire article. Credits to him too. Venkat TL (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neils51: Could you copyedit this Red Orchestra (espionage) from end to end. It's not finished, one section to finish, which is being worked on. I was told the grammer was terrible, so if you take your que from that, I would welcome it. Thanks for updating Ian Donald. I think its sounds a lot better now with the linking verb. If you have time, could you have a look at Gisela von Pöllnitz and Elfriede Paul as well scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:, no prob. Neils51 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any reason for this edit? DuncanHill (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, absolutely, what's the problem? Neils51 (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason? DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Earned' is the correct spelling in both UK and USA English. 'Earnt' is non-standard and is not listed in competent dictionaries and any listings that there are flag it as non-standard. 'Earnt' is a typical mispronunciation of the correct spelling. I remove non-standard spelling from Wikipedia, unless there are specific reasons for its presence. Does this help? Neils51 (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Earned" may be more common, but I would not call it "the correct spelling", and I would not call "earnt" a mispronunciation of "earned" but a correct pronunciation of "earnt". Changing it sems to be little more than "busy work". DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see I hadn't responded. It's not what you or I call it, it's what competent lexicographers call it and that is that 'Earned' is the correct spelling in both UK and USA English. Yes, it appears there are some who think that providing competent and correct spelling/grammar in Wikipedia is 'busy' work. Fortunately there are many that don't. Neils51 (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for: 2022 Earth Day Edit-a-thon 2pm - 4pm EST (April 22nd) online via Zoom and in person This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Wondering why you replaced the orphan tag on Burdick. If he does not pop up elsewhere in Wikipedia, what is the point of inviting people to find him? Basgar Peverel (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel[reply]

Hi Basgar Peverel, AWB does that based on orphan criteria, I wouldn't usually reject its recommendation. As his design work on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is mentioned in the lede perhaps a link from there? I see you removed a prior tag because "A search reveals that Bruce Burdick is not mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia". Well, surely that's the point of the tag? Neils51 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. But are you suggesting that I add a sentence about Burdick where appropriate, e.g. the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum? Sounds good to me.

Basgar Peverel (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel[reply]

Hi Neils51, you've made a couple of edits to windstreak to change "occurence" to "occurrence"; however, the instance of the misspelling is found in the Icarus journal article title. To me it seems to make more sense to replicate a title in a citation verbatim, which I noted in my revert of you on 23 February. Today, you reinstated your edit with the same edit summary, perhaps not noticing my earlier revert? I don't have a strong opinion either way on preserving the title verbatim, but I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter, as you did in a way revert, without further comment, my earlier reversion. Maxim_(talk) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim, a couple of things. When editing with AWB you don't see the history by default unless looking for it (there's a tab). I wasn't aware of your previous revert and have noticed over the last six months or so that not all appear under 'alerts'. It may depend on the way you did the revert. However, I do agree that titles should be preserved though if there are spelling errors then these should be tagged and this one wasn't. In this specific case I remember finding the original published paper and the spelling is correct as "occurrence' meaning that the Icarus Journal has incorrectly transcribed the title. I know in the past there has been some debate as to whether original spellings should be preserved or transcription errors maintained. Often with competent journals if such errors are pointed out they will make corrections (even for material published in the '80s!). If not, then the other option is to actually use a reference that is correct (where one exists) which is rather more respectful of the original writers. I'm happy to send a note to ScienceDirect. Neils51 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to check the original paper, and yes, occurrence was spelled properly, so the mistake is on the website. Sorry about this all! Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to say a huge thank you for your work on Nairn. My dyslexia leaves Wiki editing as something of a challenge at points but it's amazing people like you helping keep me right and readable! - DavefaceFMS 10:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavefaceFMS, thanks, no prob, I'm happy to review the entire article, which looks a good one. Probably in a day or so. Let me know if I can ever assist with looking over an article. Neils51 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neils51, I have no objection to removing the brackets around the individual dates (i.e. April 1, April 2, etc.) and I don't add those in the articles that I create, but please do not put 30 "See also: April __" headings in the article after every entry. I personally have no use for links of any type to the the "on this day" articles which seem to be more for fun than for a serious encyclopedia, but that was the preference of the article's creator. Thank you. Mandsford 17:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I just wanted to say many thanks for going around and clearing up my errors. Navops47 (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navops47, thanks, no prob. Neils51 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After this, I tried squinting a bit harder myself, and I did find out there was, as you said, no apostrophe on the cover. Still, it's not the cover that we follow. You can see how the book appears in library catalogues. – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neils51: How goes it? If you have any time, at some point, can you take a look at Avret Esir Pazarları. It been sitting in Afc draft for more than a year, but needs work. I've started on it, but it needs a copyedit. It look tilted, odd looking as though there is something up with it. Any help is appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:, I'm good! Will have a look. Neils51 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bright is his original name which is dropped during his teen, however now he is resumed using his complete name professionally.

The artist name in hyperlink for taging is inappropriate, hence not immediately found by user. 2402:E280:3E2D:371:8823:97AC:C7F:5A96 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neils51 I hope you are doing well and good The page Ahmad Sulaiman Ibrahim that you have proposed to delete is edited by someone, the guy who edited the biography of of Ahmad Sulaiman Ibrahim expected that it's same Ahmad Sulaiman Ibrahim in Afghanistan but it's not! The one that belong to the page is from Nigeria! And the person is notable in Nigeria especially in northern Nigeria. For the confirmation please check it in other languages there's the page in Hausa and Fulfulde languages. Please In your pleasure Neils51 after checking it revert all his edits and let the page come back to it's normal look. Thank you! S Ahmad Fulani|talk 20:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51! I’ve expanding the article on Almonte and out of the blue the chart I added in the “Demographics” section is gone. It says there’s a “temporary” technical issue, but I won’t get fixed.

Can you please help me out? Thank you so much. AngPz91 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AngPz91 a security issue has been identified with a graphics module. I'm afraid it's a waiting game till it gets sorted. Neils51 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! AngPz91 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Drmies (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also unsourced? [5]? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, what would you prefer? "Piece of crap?" Neils51 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vandalism", and a warning on the user talk page please. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I've found that a neutral response that is technically correct often tends to quieten the vandalism down quite quickly. I'll typically add a warning for the incorrigibles. Neils51 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd love to discuss business... is there a number I can reach you on? Victorh7 (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you add personnel and kits for the Football League First Division for the seasons 1989/90 and 1990/91 and also top assists and all that. 88.89.228.126 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Suggest find someone familiar with this area. Neils51 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with AWB. Your replacement of co2 → CO₂ and o2 → O₂ may be helpful in article text, but definitely not in case of template parameter names. I have reverted such edit of Neogene as it broke the Infobox display of Atmospheric and climatic data. Aithus (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Aithus, thanks for the pickup. @Beland:, I see that this is a second edit on my part and I don't see any other CO2 uses. I'll endeavour to watch for such use however Neogene came from the CO2 list. I think this list was created after December 2022, so are articles with templates containing CO2 string use being picked up? Neils51 (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the two instances of "CO2" that triggered inclusion on the list Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss#Known chemical formulas that don't use subscripts were fixed on December 26. The list was updated from a dump that was snapshotted on December 20, and it usually takes a few days to get posted. So maybe there was a bit of a race condition or maybe there was confusion about which articles were already completed and needed strikethrough? In any case, I checked the code, and the contents of templates are ignored. I confirmed this article does not appear on updates derived from the latest dump. And actually since it's been so long since the last update I'll do a refresh now to cut down on false alarms about problems that have recently been fixed. Thanks for flagging this; I made a note in the source code to suppress these template parameters if I ever start checking inside templates. -- Beland (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, understood, thanks for the update. Neils51 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted this edit. Keep in mind that somebody else has added the reference list back (which you removed) with the same tool. Per MOS:DOB, you are allowed to do this:

Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–1886); between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3)

You also removed the break between headers (for seemingly no reason), why aren't you allowed to have those? They are in almost every article, after all. Can you explain why you reverted the edit? FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatalFit I guess it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater which we both appear to be ‘guilty’ of. The article was fine with Kahtar’s updates of 12:42, 11 June, however with your revert to an older version and subsequent edit you removed the apostrophe from ‘battalions’ and left the use of ‘year’ within a CS1 cite format which is ‘strongly discouraged’ for day/month/year formats. I would suggest you restore Kahtar’s version, although you can manually fix these.

As far as date format goes, an ndash is fine with a date range within a month and usually the from/to format would be used with month or year spans (I suspect that WPCleaner picked up a dash rather than endash). Neils51 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did restore those versions and left a notice on their talk page right after reverting. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No FatalFit, as I said above, the article was fine with Kahtar’s updates of 12:42, 11 June. There was no need to perform a revert of their update. Have manually updated now. Neils51 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting it added back the breaks between paragraphs and other small fixes, then I manually added back the ones that were okay. What do you mean? FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatalFit, suggest review the edits. Neils51 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I guess we can both keep this in mind for the future. Thanks. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  23:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatalFit, yes, have a great day! Neils51 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please read an article before you "correct" it, as you did here? "Till" is a noun there, not a conjunction or a preposition.Kelisi (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelisi, thanks for the pickup. Neils51 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neils51. Thank you for your recent edit to El Paso Police Department. One questionable change made was changing {{cite newspaper}} references to {{cite news}} references. I don't think this is wanted. There's a semantic difference there. In this case I chose "cite newspaper" because the references were actual to actual dead-tree newspapers. Cite news is a much more general type of citation that would refer to any news source. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason Quinn, thank you. {{Cite newspaper}} is a redirect from {{cite news}}, hence in the scheme of things 'no semantic difference'. AWB (edit tool) does this change and I suspect the reasoning (or one of the reasons) is to differentiate from the {{Cite newspaper The Times}} references. Neils51 (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "no technical difference". There is a semantic difference. Editors are responsible for reviewing all changes made, including those done by editing software so if the fact that AWB is doing this doesn't mean it's kosher. I don't use AWB but I will follow-up on this there. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Quinn, changing a redirect to its native parent is fine. I can't think of any reason why it would not be. Essentially it is 'cosmetic', makes no difference to the reader. Neils51 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Xuxa só para Baixinhos 1, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copyediting Criccieth Castle, it's always useful to have a second pair of eyes check things after a large edit and I can see you caught quite a few errors. Apologies for the hyphens in the date ranges, I'm sure that was a pain to correct! A.D.Hope (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A.D.Hope, thank you. I was using AutoWikiBrowser to look for duplicate use of 'the' with AWB's 'general fixes' turned on, so the editor did the work of looking at date ranges. General fixes are designed to apply the Manual of Style editing recommendations. They are not always 100% as there may be context that doesn't fit, so all need review. Even then I may miss the occasional one (and get a 'reminder' ;-). Neils51 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

test Neils51 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As requested. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For outstanding work in television related articles. Keep going... TruxtVerified (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neils51. Greetings, I see you are an very experienced Wikipedian and a member of Typo-Team. Thank you for all your efforts.

In particular I sincerely thank you for your recent correction Stationary Office -> Stationery Office on the article Antoine Hamilton.

I wonder, however, whether it was a good idea to throw out the spaces before the invisible comments ( <!-- ). I think some Wikipedians recommend to do so, but I feel these spaces strongly enhance the readability of the code. MOS:COMMENT, which I think is pertinent here, prescribes "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing unwanted white space in the rendered page", but the MOS does not forbid separating end-of-line comments from the code by a space as I habitually do. I have not seen any unwanted whitespace added by these spaces before comments. This is important to me because I use these comments in this way in the "list-defined references" citation style, which I recently adopted. I think it is AWB Genfixes who did this. Genfixes has other problems and should not be used without supervision as you surely know. I think I will just go through and re-introduce the mentioned spaces. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade, thank you for your comments. I don't think that genfixes has problems per-se it's just that some automated changes are sometimes not a good fit (about 0.001%?) and the AWB user should be checking all edits. You are aware that this particular case is not one of those, as those spaces are cosmetic from the point of view of AWB genfixes. You could try asking for 'dispensation' for this scenario however I doubt you would get much traction. I see you have put them back however they are likely to disappear again the next time someone runs AWB genfixes on the article. Perhaps just 'take it on the chin' and replace them when next making other changes. All the best! Neils51 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neils51. Thank you for your kind reply. Many people seem to consider AWB General Fixes as programmed-in parts of MOS and refuse to discuss them. I see you are an expert on AWB. I do not understand why you say "You are aware that this particular case is not one of those ...". Do you mean to say that AWB users need to check only the effect on the text and not on the code? WP:AWBRULES states "You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand." I think the "edit form" refers to editing on the code and that changes in the code, even if invisible in the text seen by the readers and often termed "inconsequential" or "cosmetic", do matter and need to be reviewed by the AWB users because they affect the readability of the code and that is where most of us editors spend our time. Is not the citation style "list-defined references", declared by {{Use list-defined references}}, entirely without effect on how citations look to the reader? And still this style needs to be respected once it has been adopted for an article. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade, by "You are aware that this particular case is not one of those..." I meant that this is not a case where the AWB logic being applied is making an error and the using editor is required to make a correction (a reversal). By definition, comments are not part of a list style nor a component of the included reference, so there is no reason for an editor to believe that a 'style' is being violated, and that AWB is making an error. Effectively comments are fair game when it comes to 'cosmetic' decisions. I would suggest that if you expect otherwise that you flag as such, perhaps including a CAPS style to indicate to any editor that you want spaces preceding comment markup to be retained in the specific section. Most editors (the ones that sight the request) would likely respect such a request. Regards, Neils51 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neils51. Thank you for your patience and your kind reply. I did not intend to say that the spaces that you removed were part of the List-defined Reference style. Of course AWB General Fixes does make an error here. It takes the space away that I added for readability. It seems to believe in error that the space would add unwanted white-space (see MOS:COMMENT). This is not an improvement but a deterioration. It makes the code less readable. So it should not be done according to WP:AWBRULES. Nobody would do such an edit by hand. Nothing is "fair game" for wrong edits, even if they result from running Genfixes. There should not be a need for a flag. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade, your assertions are based on "..AWB General Fixes does make an error here." We'll have to agree to disagree. I have suggested an action you can take with specific articles. If you believe that AWB is in error then also suggest raise a case here to obtain consensus. Regards, Neils51 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51! I’ve been working on the article Almonte, Spain for months and I added a graph in the “Demographics” section. It got broken out of the blue several months ago and the problem won’t get solved by itself. Can you help me make the graph visible again? Thank you so much!! AngPz91 (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AngPz91, there are still issues with the graph system. Refer mw:Extension:Graph/Plans for further info. Best I can suggest is build the graph yourself and upload a screenshot (or similar). Neils51 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! AngPz91 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine point of page layout and really has more to do with behavior and etiquette, I suppose. But why do you feel it necessary to remove the extra space on the Fuzzball article? I think it looks ugly to have the Table of Contents crowded so close to the text above it; I even had an editors' note (visible right in the applicable spot when in editing mode) explaining my rationale. Do you think crowding TOCs tight like that improves the appearance of the page? Or do you object to techniques that vary from what you normally see? Greg L (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg L, apologies I see I never responded. AWB makes these changes and unless obviously incorrect an AWB user would typically not change them. If tools are continually making this change and you object to the change then what you can do is convert such spaces to non-breaking spaces and the tools will leave them alone. Hope that helps. Neils51 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Legalist precedessors from the Wu Wei page is imported from work performed on the Chinese Legalism page. Although I will have a look at your correction to implement them, perform future corrections on the section there and they will be imported to the wu wei page.FourLights (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit! By chance, do you know where in the MOS it talks about when to use the actual number (11) and when to write it out (eleven)? I always get those confused. Panini! • 🥪 17:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panini!, thank you, the article is here with specific references here. Neils51 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specific_Area_Message_Encoding&oldid=1189227014

Sorry, I fat-fingered something in visual-edit mode while i was trying to fix the link, I saw it going wrong, and thought that a tab reload would clear the accidental edit, but apparently not. Shadowjonathan (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjonathan Tks, seemed out of place for you :-) Neils51 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Neils51, and thank you for your typos and references cleanup of Butterfly stroke. It is a wonderful world (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks It is a wonderful world, have a good Christmas! Neils51 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neils51,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rishi Kumar (Indian politican) for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Rishi Kumar (Indian politican) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, "University of Iowa" is a proper noun. See University of Iowa. BD2412 T 14:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412:Missed that construction, thanks for the pickup. Neils51 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was, I will grant, already an odd format. I think one would expect University of Iowa Hawkeyes football, but I gather the institution was already linked elsewhere. BD2412 T 21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, while attempting to send thanks to you for fixing typos on Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum, my mouse wheel moved and I accidentally rolled back your edit! I immediately undid it, but just letting you know this was a genuine mistake as you may have gotten an alert for it. My apologies! – TCMemoire 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TCMemoire, no prob, thanks for the heads up. Neils51 (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this revert, well apparently there are two "h"s in the correct spelling of Ichthyology. See also Category:Brazilian ichthyologists and the Merriam-Webster entry here. But the motivation behind my correction is it's appearing in Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, currently item #45. That report has been running a bit back-logged lately, but it lists redirects that should be fixed due to misspellings. I can let your version go as is, but sooner or later (could be much later) someone will correct the spelling unless the redirect is changed to not flag it as a misspelling, but instead, an alternate spelling. Is it an alternate spelling? --DB1729^talk 03:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized after reviewing my edit that I had mistakenly added an "s" making it plural. I had copy-pasted the word from the category to make sure I got the spelling right, only to make that silly blunder. So I'm wondering if that's the only reason for your revert.

I stand by the rest of my comments above and it's still gonna show in the database report, so I'm leaving it up to you. Cheers! --DB1729^talk 04:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DB1729 yes, you are correct it wasn't fine as it was however I only saw the 's' and was, shall we say, immensely puzzled! Didn't think to look elsewhere. Do you want to fix it, your 'find' :-) Neils51 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Someone had added a short description with the same spelling so I've fixed both.[6] Hopefully I got it right this time. Have a great rest of your day! --DB1729^talk 10:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are using a script something erroneous happened in this edit Special:Diff/1222908210/1224115402 at line #17 -- GreenC 18:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem: Special:Diff/1213130819/1224123165 -- GreenC 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Special:Diff/1220805708/1224117476 -- GreenC 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, yeah, I stuffed something up and thought I had found all instances. Thanks for the pickup, will sort. Neils51 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for adding dashes. -- GreenC 18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at Vasculitis article, See also section (which I added SA section).

Help to de-orphan articles. 1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog. 2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles. » De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Memorial Union (University of Wisconsin–Madison), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my errors on that page, I'm a bit embarrassed that I missed some of those (or added them myself). I had figured that I had been looking at the word siege too much which is why it looked weird, but nope, it was just wrong. I was wondering why you removed 'of' from 'In April of 1592'? Keep up your good work :) Moritoriko (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moritoriko thank you for your note. Yes, we often miss items in what we have written and that's why it can be a good idea to have someone else proofread our material. When I was document writing I would have a workmate review (gee, how did I miss that!). The removal of 'Of' from the date reference is a 'general' fix made by AWB to have date references conform to the standards as described in the Manual of Style.

The old 'I before E rule' is a good one to know, however like many English-language rules there are exceptions. Have a great day! Neils51 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City–Saint Joseph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I reverted some vandalism by restoring the prior page. Your edits were marked as reverted.

List of Kasautii Zindagii Kay cast is meant to be a redirect to to the series article. IP user 203.99.184.247 has been warned multiple times to either added that info to the series article or go through the proper draft process for a new page. Again, I apologize that your edit was reverted in the process.

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RCSCott91, no prob, thanks for the heads-up! Neils51 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]