User page Talk page Info Older talk Sandbox

Info

I try to follow the talk-guidelines, but it is an endless learning process. Often I edit my comments to correct mistakes, or add missing information (links etc) but without changing the main content/message to don't disturb discussions. Also, I try to don't delete content (for sure of others) unless is not needed anymore (warnings, learning tips, etc). Addicted to use often Bold and Italic.

July 2018

The CMIP6 additions are excellent, but as minor improvements I propose (1) removing the subdivision markers, which are unnecessary for such a short entry and thus not compatible with the style of most Wikipedia articles, (2) removing the illustration, which actually adds no information--it shows that each phase follows the preceding one, we already know that, and (3) removing the list of MIPs, easily available in the references and not the kind of list appropriate for Wikipedia's encyclopedia style. Spencer Weart (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Just cleaned from long useless discussions (at this moment I don't know if collapsible sections are possible to it was just removed but kept in history) AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The problem is that the page you mentioned Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities has not been updated for sometime. It has entries that are not source-code-hosting facilities anymore, so I was thinking that it is non-sense to don't have one that should be a notable entry for sure for this page but keep others that have ceased their activity since more than 3 years. Thank you for inform about this protocol. So I understand that before edit this page it is needed to create others before. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re November 2024 Amsterdam Attacks

Do you think any of this warrants inclusion in the article? I realized later (after another editor shut down my discussion) that I failed to state my request explicitly (though I thought it was pretty clear). In particular, I felt the statement by the Amsterdam City Council member deserved mention.

(Please note that I have asked the same question of one other editor, and I have simply copied the text to ask the same question of you, based on your participation on the article talk page. Please do not mistake for SPAM.)

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your comment. I already known about this statement but I did not have the chance to listen it carefully, I will evaluate as soon as possible. Maybe other editor did not consider your question if you are not extended-confirmed editor. This is because for these difficult topics are needed extra layers of protection of the content to avoid vandalism. If an Amsterdam City Council member opinion has been mentioned in external media (not just his own twitter/X) it can be included (I guess) in the page but probably there will be some debate about relevance. I hope that when the situation settles down a little better, all the relevant statements can be included, and hopefully we will have more sounded information about what it happened. AyubuZimbale (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]