User talk:Sec906

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

January 2010

Your recent edit to the page Zooey Deschanel appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the content with references added. Thanks.(Sec906 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Youngest

I tablified the text at User:Moondyne/Sandbox but am now not so sure if its a good idea after all. You decide. :/ –Moondyne 05:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Main concern is we're reporting something that is no longer officially recognised. But by all means progress with it if you're happy to do so. 2 dates in 1 column looks yuk, and as you say, you lose the ability to sort, which would be useful there I think—my 2¢. –Moondyne 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Grateful if you could recheck my dates plse. –Moondyne 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Logical punctuation

Indeed, just the same: please see WP:LQ, and that other user's talk page. Smartiger (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

And it would be remiss of me to not thank you also, for the fine work you've been doing, both improving the articles and keeping the clueless on the straight and narrow. Well done mate. –Moondyne 13:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry.

I reverted a perfectly legit edit of yours, it was a glitch of Huggle, as I meant to revert an edit on the page I was viewing before it. As I've said, I'm sorry! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Abby Sunderland

Thank you for protecting the Abby Sunderland article. However, I'd like to suggest you may want to extend protection beyond the three days. Communication with her was lost today and the nearest rescue ship is at least 40 hours away. One hopes they will find her soon, but if not the search-and-rescue attempt could drag on for many days. Editors have been inserting a death-date for her, which is a particularly sensitive edit. Thanks for your consideration of this suggestion. (SEC (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, good call on that one. I have increased the protection to a week - that should cover the two days the boats will require, and allow another another 5 days of search and rescue operations. If she is found within these 5 days we will likely have a bunch of press coverage people will try to add (Thus possible BLP concerns). If she is not found within this time frame i fear the worst, since i presume that carrying 7 days of supplies is difficult. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

sections

Not at all intermixed, this edit of yours seems to me as though you're trying to make it harder for readers to follow the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is, for the most part, written in the order events were revealed, but not in the order they happened. The very last sentence is about how the ship was dismasted, the middle of the middle paragraph is about how the boat was discovered dismasted but upright. The first paragraph has information about where the dismasting happened.

The information about the air search was in the former "dismasting" section. Wouldn't that fit better in the "rescue" section? But then that paragraph has informatoin about the dismasting and sail dragging. All mixed in.

Etc, etc.

I don't think my edit is final, but there needs to be a more logical gathering or sequencing of the facts before this section can be divided (which it probably should be). Still needs work. Maybe a Dismasting and Rescue section with three subsections (Dismasting, Search, Rescue)?(SEC (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Hyphenation of compound modifiers

"Electronically-reported" is incorrectly punctuated. You quoted Compound modifier#Compound adjectives, but Compound modifier#Exceptions says "The -ly suffix on an adverb allows readers to understand its lexical category (if not in the technical sense, then at least in the sense of the intended meaning), showing that it is intended to modify the adjective that it precedes and so not requiring hyphenation." This describes how the hyphen is generally used in the English language. But the way hyphens are supposed to be used in Wikipedia articles is defined in WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, points 3,4,5; point 4 says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". This is even more clear. I have removed the hyphen from the article a second time. Chris the speller ^yack 15:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are correct; thanks for the follow-up. SEC (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:She and Him Volume 3.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:She and Him Volume 3.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sec906. 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)