User talk:Ttocserp

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Limehouse Cut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratford (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) 07:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Realization has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Way (vessel) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Dictionary entry

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Way (vessel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Way (vessel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating such an interesting article Whitechapel Mount John B123 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Ravenscroft 1972b, p. 6." but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo and should be "Ravenhill 1972b"? If that's the case, I also noted that the page number for other "Ravenhill 1972b" citations in the 60s, this one is just 6 -- possibly a digit missing? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:22, 18 November 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) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, how exactly do I put sources in the article Karl Marx? I’m still learning to put sources in articles. Jimmyy68 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for creating Embanking of the tidal Thames. A really excellent article! Mccapra (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what your issue was with my edits to Erith? I simply made some minor edits to more encyclopaedic language, don't think I added or removed any content. Jdcooper (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd refer you to the response I gave to your compatriot earlier today. If you can't include a citation, you shouldn't add new entries. You may have noticed that I went to the trouble of adding citations to some of that other user's entries, but I can't do that all the time for every new entry. I will remove new and existing entries that are lacking in international notability and don't meet the guidelines. Are you aware of the existence of Year in Topic articles, such as "Year in Portugal" and "Year in music"? It's better to check these first before adding new entries to the main Year article. The guideline saying that all entries in individual Day or Year articles have to have citations came in during 2018 so there are still a lot of old entries that don't have citations and a group of editors are doing their best to rectify this situation. You are welcome to help with that. It would also be good to start the missing "Year in Portugal" articles. There are lots missing from the 19th century - for example, 1839 in Portugal, 1856 in Portugal. Deb (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I directed a section at your reversal of my edit, please discuss it there if you have the time

(link)

Hi!

I noticed you reverted a few edits of mine claiming that there was nuance lost in modifying language to something more normally used English. In both cases, I think the turns of phrase and idiomatic expressions I included are more appropriate than the ones you reverted back to. This isn't about content so much as it is about English that is stylistically readable.

jps (talk) 17:32, 3 October 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering why my edit removing a secomd section called 'Contemporary slavery' in Slavery was reverted. I was not trying to "censor" anything - there was a well-developed, more detailed section before it. The section was also copied from History of slavery, where it fits much better and is not needlessly duplicated. I am not trying to start an argument, I am simply looking for an explanation. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Fig 5 to me. I could not find that reference with a text search (and I am the one who added that citation in the first place). I am still trying to figure out how to let other future editors know about it. We can't expect them to read through the history and find your edit summary. Annette Maon (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaucho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page José Hernández.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write that article? Well, it seems you did most of the work on it, if so I'd like to thank and congratulate you, very good article overall! Sometimes these things go unnoticed and I feel like we should always thank and show our appreciation to people when they deserve it, and you definitely do. Torimem (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I'd noticed you've been contributing a lot to Brazil-related articles. I'm working on another at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ttocserp/sandbox see section 2. Would you like to collaborate? Ttocserp 06:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited York ham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Riding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ttocserp, I was wondering if you still oppose merging World's second oldest profession into Oldest profession (phrase). No problem if so, I just don't want to leave the tags up too long either way. Thanks, Maltice (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't oppose if the title was unchanged and the new section was put at the end.Ttocserp 23:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pelham Horton Box, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entre Rios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this revert you assert "Proper noun". But books pretty uniformly use lowercase in "the siege of Humaitá". So I put it back to lowercase, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested I have gone onto the talk page and asked for some concensus regarding my addition, your deletion and your accusation of Spam. I attempted to bev very transparent about the origins of the book and even included a review in the citations. The external links were all to the contributors to the works who currently do not have wiki pages. In the coming months, I intend to correct that as each has made a major contribution to war photography. Given the time required for each to gather relevant citations and references, I doubt they will be created overnight.

DJB of Melb (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ttocserp, how are you? I recently started work on an article about the Brazilian blockade of the River Plate during the Cisplatine War. I gathered some good sources and started writing. I wonder if you wouldn't happen to be interested in helping me with this article. I think you might like the subject. If you can't or aren't interested, no problem! But if you want to you can check it here User:Torimem/sandbox4. Torimem (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that is very impressive, Torrimem. I had a a vague and distorted notion of the topic. i don't think Argentine nationalists are going to be pleased!

My problem is time - I am working on an article that has been building for two years and had had thousands of edits. Let me see what I can do on the margins.Ttocserp 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take your time. Torimem (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

motto is no longer a parameter in the infobox. If you feel it should be in the article, then it should be in the text. (and since it is in the text, and not displayed, it shouldn't be kept)Naraht (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you reverted that one because it's fairly easily sourced, including in the body of the article. I'm going to find another source and add it back. I would advise against reverting me that time. pbp 12:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official publication of the Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay:

Día del folklore paraguayo

El Folklore paraguayo es fruto del sincretismo de las tradiciones, creencias y costumbres de origen criollo-guaraní-gaucho. Es un símbolo del Paraguay y su cultura y por eso, este 22 de agosto se celebra el día del folklore paraguayo. [Paraguayan Folklore is the result of the syncretism of traditions, beliefs and customs of Creole-Guarani-Gaucho origin. It is a symbol of Paraguay and its culture and for that reason, this August 22 is celebrated the day of Paraguayan folklore.][1]

Book: Descripcion é historia del Paraguay y del Rio de la Plata, by Félix de Azara:

"Además de los dichos hay por aquellos campos, principalmente por los de Montevideo y Maldonado, otra casta de gente llamados más pro- piamente gauchos ó gauderios". [In addition to the aforementioned, there are in those fields, mainly in Montevideo and Maldonado, another caste of people more commonly called gauchos or gauderios.][2]

Newspaper ABC Color: Paraguay revive su identidad gaucha en festejos de Santiago de Misiones. [Paraguay revives its gaucho identity in the celebrations of Santiago de Misiones.][3] Guarandu (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is appropriate. Please remember to give the complete citation, not just the bare url, which soon decays, see Wikipedia:Link rot.

The second source does not begin to establish it. It just says there are gauchos in Uruguay. Nowhere does Azara, a fine author, mention gauchos in his Paraguayan travels.

The third source, ABC Color, is not very reliable. The first is enough. Ttocserp 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ttocserp, how are you? I was surprised by the reversal of my contribution, within the variants of paella, of senyoret rice. I have included a reference to a renowned centenary newspaper from the original city of paella, and the information added is what the source says. Señoret (little gentleman in valencian lenguage) rice is a seafood paella in which you don't have to get your hands dirty peeling the seafood because it is already peeled. That's where the name comes from: the work is already done. The reference explains it this way, and I have translated it in my own words. What is the problem? Thank you Spanish Heritage (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por su repuesta, y aprecio que Vd. sinceramente quiso mejorar el artículo. Sin embargo, está un poco afuera del tema del artículo (que ya nos tiene harto de arroces que francamente no son la paella) y el inglés no está perfecto ("what means rice" no es aceptable; Vd. quiso decir "which means".) Si lo hace más incisivo (y corto) y corrige el lenguaje no creo que habrá problema.Ttocserp 08:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that if, like me, you are a true lover of the rice dishes of Levantine Spain, you may wish to collaborate with me in writing an article. We could do parallel versions on English and Spanish Wikipedia. It would have to be impeccably sourced, however.Ttocserp 09:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I love rice dishes of Levantine Spain, but I am quite new in Wikipedia and I lack skills in editing, so I only add references and correct some visible errors. My intention is to collaborate here on articles that have to do with Spain. If I can be of help in that area of ​​knowledge on the English Wikipedia, I would be delighted. Spanish Heritage (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. Conozco bien el mundo de los arroces. Cuando entré en el artículo vi que ponía "Cita requerida" en el Arros del Senyoret, muy común en la zona de Levante, y añadí la referencia y su significado. Intentaré mejorarlo. El Senyoret es uno de los arroces hechos en paella más populares. Intentaré seguir sus consejos. De hecho, he visto que ya hay una explicación sobre este tipo de arroz en el propio artículo, un poco más abajo, y puede que no sea necesario explicarlo ahí, solo poner la referencia. Siento el error sintáctico, lo hice algo rápido. Muchas gracias por su respuesta. Spanish Heritage (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Gaucho, would you be interested in joining a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know little about oral tradition as a concept.Ttocserp 11:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay, no worries. If you’re interested, there’s a section on useful sources on the main page, but no worries if not Kowal2701 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://citer.toolforge.org/ Moxy🍁 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but doesn't work for my purpose. 1. Doesn't give exact page. 2. Doesn't suppress search string. Ttocserp 14:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry I upset you. You are also welcome to look at an article I've been sandboxing for months on Manumission in ancient Rome. The ambiguities of Junian Latin status pertain to the question of "slaves" owning slaves. It's a very complicated topic, and I had to set it aside for a while so I could hope to come back and try to make sense of it for readers from a more outside perspective. The draft will show me shouting questions at myself that I haven't been able to resolve amongst the sources, so that's why I haven't posted the article yet. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took Junian freedmen into account when writing my article. Ttocserp 16:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Elite slaves has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24 § Elite slaves until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Slave-owning slaves at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]