Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NPalgan2! I wanted to take a moment to formally make your acquaintance and to thank you for your great additions to my formerly-stalled article, The Wood Nymph. It was terrible of me to nominate it for GA, but to then turn my back on it; truth be told, I had gotten distracted by other projects (e.g., The Oceanides and rewriting the biography of Sibelius's student, Leevi Madetoja, as well as pages for some of his attendant works). Moreover, I have had to cut back my work on Wikipedia, due to the demands of school work. I am very glad to see that you have taken over and will assist this article to where we both believe it should be. I see you've added a lot of great content; I might add that I always envisioned a short section on the melodrama under Op. 15, but never got around to it.

I love the musical additions you've made to the article. You might think about adding a few to the FA The Oceanides. Also, I had plans to rewrite En saga and Pohjola's Daughter and Tapiola, but each was backburnered. While the final two are nowhere near ready, I actually have a TON of content finished for the En saga rewrite. You might think about taking a look at that too and finishing the three or four sections I never completed. My energy is spent. Still, it'd be nice to get this content to the main page because En saga is a tremendous piece! I should also add one final point about the Sibelius tone poems project I envisioned: I wanted them to be structured similarly and to have a similar aesthetic. Seems as though you've adhered to this, so we're on the same page. Thanks for keeping the infobox! I'd hate to rewage that war. Do you have plans to update the articles on any of his other compositions? Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sgvrfis, adding a section on the melodrama and some scores to The Oceanides sounds good. Kudos to you on the work you've been doing on Madetoja. I like the infobox, I have absolutely no plans to demand its removal, but I do feel that a more chronologically appropriate picture for each composition is better than just the 1913 one. En Saga seems like a good place to work, it's pretty short right now. Best, NPalgan2 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake...you can find the en saga here: User:Sgvrfjs/Ensaga

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Wood Nymph you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged up a couple minor issues. Nothing much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Wood Nymph you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Wood Nymph for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that; the bot screwed up. I've put up a thread. I think it's because I didn't remove the older, failed GA nom from the top of the page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably tell, it's been sorted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wood Nymph

Thank you for improving The Wood Nymph to good article, inviting collaboration to do so, and planning for higher quality, for Kim Hyong-uk, for "rewritten most of article, adding RSs and correcting errors", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1529 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I was wondering whether you were aware of any sources from Harvard and/or Oxford professors (or any good sources in general) that I might be able to access with regard to the Modern Portrayal of Caracalla. I ask as you seem quite familiar with the topic of Roman history, whereas while I edit almost exclusively within that topic area, am merely somebody who's interested in the topics and have to learn pretty much everything on a certain topic beforehand. Slightly useful as I don't go into the writing with any OR knowledge, but, useless when trying to find a specific detail I know exists, but, not where to find it.

The reason for my creating portrayal sections is that Caracalla is infamous as a cruel and violent tyrant - like Caligula, though, less mad. It was meant to follow on from Elagabalus (an FA - though, I think we'd agree that it's not really an FA at all due to the pervasiveness of primary sources). Elagabalus of course has one of these because the large shift in portrayal that has happened over the last two millenia. In Elagabalus' age he was considered mad, and a heretic with disdain for Rome's way of life. Now, he's a LGBT studies candidate and is viewed more favourably then he used to be. I'm going to try and tackle that whole section by Sat/Sun and then let you and BM go through the article again.

You'll probably notice quite a few prose changes throughout the article, which you've identified as the biggest problem/obstacle to GA. I'll let BM look at that as well, if the prose is nowhere near GA standard then BM can recommend an approach forward. BM has fairly significant experience at the GA level. I've said it myself, I think you're pushing more into the FA level of prose and I strongly disagree with If you are no expert in the English language, it's hard to write get an article to GA level. - I've been there and passed there several times, but, Caracalla is the most ambitious and well known topic I've put up for GA. Also, feel free to list even a hundred prose problems, or point me to specific paragraphs. BM tends to do a thing like; The last two sentences of army policy need to be recast for clarity. I just really don't know what to do with "every few lines" - I'm almost positive that it's not quite that bad, but, simultaenously that does mean that there are still quite a few problems that need cleaning. I'd like to get it to the GA standard and clear it for GA by the end of the month if at all possible. Prose is one of the few things that I think can be fixed fairly quickly, it doesn't require going through and finding sources and citations, just better phrasing, correct punctuation, and grammar.

Thanks for the review and pointing out some obvious glaring problems that I should have noted earlier. Tarantus, are you kidding me, I have literally read Dio's passages on Caracalla two times and not once did I notice that it is actually Tarautus; Such was the life and the end of Tarautas. Though, more commonly Antoninus is used. Oh, and you'll notice I'm terrible at writing short messages - so I broke it down into paragraphs - sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Today is busy for me but here is a quick note - it’s true that I haven’t done GA review before but I looked at the GA class articles Nero, Tiberius, Caligula and their GA reviews to try and get a sense of what GA reviewers generally demand. Some of these articles make too much use of unmediated primary ancient sources even though they don’t really count as RS, so though I suggest you use modern scholarship quoting ancient sources rather than just straight up cite Dio and Herodian, I won’t fail the article on those grounds (not counting the Historia Augusta, of course). The FA Elagabalus obviously has a lot of material usable in the Caracalla article.

Here are some suggestions for modern scholarly sources not in the article.

CAH volume 12, 2005 (highly authoritative) https://books.google.com/books?id=MNSyT_PuYVMC

D. Potter The Roman Empire at Bay https://books.google.com/books?id=7HKFAgAAQBAJ

R. Syme, Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (check your local university library)

Here too: https://books.google.com/books?id=QCYDPVx7LQkC&pg=PA472

https://books.google.com/books?id=2p9hCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69

Book on Elagabalus but has lots of stuff on Caracalla and the family as well: https://books.google.com/books?id=2Tin5C1YnaAC

A historiography section on the lines of this Tiberius#Historiography would be a good idea. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didnt expect quite so many sources. Will look at them over the next few days. New comment; I have now had a chance to take a more detailed look at your reply and here are some of my thoughts. I took a look at Tiberius' historiography section, the first three sections dealing with the primary sources is entirely WP:OR, however, the review was in 2008 where standards were very lax so I'm not suprised to see that that was passeable. I'll give a brief example; The most famous sections of his biography delve into the numerous alleged debaucheries Tiberius remitted himself to while at Capri. - Suetonius is cited to this statement. Do we really think Suetonius described a section of his own work as famous? course not, that's either the conclusion of an uncited source, or much more likely, the editors own opinion.

The above said however, I kind of get where you're going with it. My section on classical portrayal I would think is somewhat similar here in terms of the intended content. I suppose you're going for a discussion about Dio's and Herodian's works with regards to Caracalla under separate sections, maybe even a piece on the Historia Augusta. I can try to develop something like that. The medieval legend would remain as is under it's own section, as would the discussion on the French revolution - I mean barring any prose changes.

You mentioned that a discussion of the modern portrayal of Caracalla would only be of interest if it challenged the previous conceptions of him. Well, I have at least one source that focuses on other aspects beyond the "rapine and cruelty" that Dio started and Gibbon perpetuated. Actually for that matter, a section for Gibbon's work might be valuable as well, he is quite well known and he bases his work heavily off of Dio's. A sort of discussion about how works of his era are far more trusting of the original source material than newer scholarship is. I recall reading precisely that in either one of my sources or just somewhere random. I think it would be best to get that sorted first and then we can focus on prose. I'll let you know how I get on with it by the weekend, ping me if you have anything you want me to look at or fix up in the meantime. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to in the revert, so if you could make it clear on the talk page please do. Otherwise, I'll have to remove that tag again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NPalgan2. Are you aware this article is under WP:1RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: With these two edits ([1] [2]), you have violated the WP:1RR rule placed on the Jeff Sessions page (as wells as WP:BRD). I can see you are a new editor. I suggest you read up WP:1RR, WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, WP:BRD to familiarize yourself with these rules so you do not inadvertently violate them. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NPalgan2. You have new messages at Talk:Mitch_McConnell#Favorability_rating.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, NPalgan2. You have new messages at Talk:Mitch_McConnell#POV_flag.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

On Feb 15 I added the following 2 sentences to the Stephen Miller article:

• Miller’s high school curriculum was filled with reading, writing and riling up his fellow students with controversial statements.^[1]

• “At Santa Monica High School, while running for class pres Stephen Miller was boo'd off a stage by over 4000 students. ... [purportedly] due to the volatile content of the speech."^[1]

Your undo of this revision stated: this is undue weight from a nonRS. Some mention of miller's activism in HS is OK, but BLP for a highschooler should tread light

I have several issues regarding your rationale:

1. The 2 sentences I added were not inflammatory nor did the statements attack Mr. Miller. Indeed, per Wiki rules and guidelines these sentences were neutral. I treaded very lightly in selecting only those 2 sentences.
2. Since the sentences were taken from the New York Daily News - 4th largest newspaper in the U.S. a recipient of many Pulitzer Prizes, The Daily News is considered a Reliable Source.
3. The 1st sentence I had added to the Wiki article was the 1st sentence in the Daily News article. The remainder of the article supported that contention with evidence and first hand testimony. This sentence was fully supported by evidence and testimony in the remainder of the article.
4. The cite link to the site of a video obtained by the Washington Post (and Univision). The video speaks for itself as a Reliable Source.
5. The 2nd sentence was posted by Cody Decker, an American professional baseball player currently a member of the Milwaukee Brewers organization and previously a classmate of Miller at Santa Monica High School. Cody Decker and others were witnesses to Mr. Miller's speech and expressed homogeneous responses. As a public figure, Decker's comments are a Reliable Source.

In summary, these 2 sentences have been Reliably Sourced as an accurate and neutral reportage of Miller as a highschooler. These 2 sentences treaded very lightly, coming nowhere close to some of the inflammatory recollections of other classmates. These 2 sentences reflect a persona that Miller not only embraces and nurtures but is also a persona of which he promotes to this day.

For myself and for a reader of Wiki, I thought these 2 sentences are an interesting testimony of the character of Miller even in high school and of his nascent provocative disposition - a telling and chilling indication of who he would become. I am baffled that you would try to suppress this reportage.

In conclusion, I disagree with your representation of the 2 sentences as being of undue weight, I disagree with your representation that the 2 sentences came from an non Reliable Source, and I disagree with your insinuation that Miller's activism as indicated by those 2 sentences is even remotely a denunciation of that high school-er. Indeed, as per Wiki objectives, those 2 sentences provide true and proper data on which to make a fair and balanced judgment of where Mr. Miller is coming from. As such, I request that you undo your revision of my revision and reinstate those 2 sentences.

Thank you, Yuri716 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this on the talk page so other editors can weigh in. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Col·legi de les Teresianes to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Ochib (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article for now, as you just imported part of a foreign-language article without translating it; it would perhaps be better to create a draft-page, and work on it before moving it into wiki-articlespace. Ping me please if you need the content of the deleted article. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar, Sorry, I was playing with the translation tool and didn't realize I'd hit 'publish' by mistake. Sorry to have wasted your time. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. All in a day's work. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stephen Miller (aide) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially, because the page is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello, NPalgan2. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  12:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammer and sickle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hoe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You discovered a really rich vein of POV at the I. F. Stone bio. Thanks for tagging it. Motsebboh (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted to the talk pace regarding the Anne Applebaum op-ed. Thanks, --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NPalgan2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
adding references doesn't make it notable for that article. What does Marshall's referring to himself have to do with the surrounding text? You can add that sentence to the article Bob Marshall but it doesn't belong in this article. Adding this does nothing but try to make Wikipedia sound not neutral and left-leaning. In fact, this should be included in the article about Marshall. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 01:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

☎️ Did you look at the 4 articles I added? The Guardian and the LATimes both put the "chief homophobe" bit *in the headline* of articles about Roem. So, yes, these media orgs judged it relevant to Roem, so it belongs in the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron law of oligarchy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron law (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) 09:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn’t read the link, it mentioned the subject of the article. I’ve clarified that. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that was a fat finger error. See my reply. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Legend of the Condor Heroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jurchen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty disruptive to spam all the noticeboards you can find with exactly the same issue (a particular paragraph in Stephen Miller (political advisor)), NPalgan2. It does not help to determine consensus, please see WP:OTHERPARENT. Since you started the discussion on WP:RSN first, I've left that one open, and closed the one on WP:BLPN. There is also a lively discussion on article talk, so I'm not sure why you think you'll get a different result by dragging it round the noticeboards. Please don't take it to any more "parents", and not the connected issue of whether or not to call Miller "far-right" in the lead, either; the current RFC on talk, which you started, is surely enough. If you wish to take either or both these questions to dispute resolution, that's something else, and I don't want to stop you from that, if you think it'll help your cause. (I personally doubt it, as consensus seems to be against you, but it's up to you.) Bishonen | talk 22:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, just to make it formal, I have issued a 3RR warning below. It's hard to believe, but he's actually edit warred to insert this. So forum shopping is just part of it. I figured that "et vink med en vognstang" (Danish for "a hint with a wagon rod", which is normally fatal) was necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stephen Miller (political advisor) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Zhuang of Chu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The 10,000 Year Explosion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hawks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Huamo, NPalgan2!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The formatting of the references needs attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for the article on a Chinese poet. I remember learning the poem while picking up Mandarin. Brings back memories.

Edaham (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this edit. Joining two names like this requires an en-dash, not a hyphen. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to you that I have mentioned you in ANI, although the discussion was not mainly about you. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NPalgan2. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're already involved in the article, I would appreciate you giving your opinion about what I posted here: Talk:The_10,000_Year_Explosion#Primary_source_issues. 2600:1004:B166:2880:3CE3:328E:4A54:5E0F (talk) 01:39, 21 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]