Maybe, but since back then grey herons were imply called herons I don't think it makes much of a difference. Also the grey heron article has no name section, and it's not really worth starting one just to quote Shakespeare. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sophie. I saw your edit summary here; can you explain what the problems with the new system are? We're trying to improve on it, so every bug report or whatnot helps :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see that it wraps <nowiki> around everything you add, so creating a new section leaves ugly equals signs, and no doubt refs and other markups would be left within the text. However I see there's a new "edit source" button which seems to mean "edit the old way." as long as this remains an option I'll continue editing here. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of; it's a rich-text editor, so it wraps nowikis around markup, since you shouldn't be entering markup directly. We really do need a better way of handling when people do that, however :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it's still sucky to see good-faith editors tripped up. Anyway; now you know, and for those who don't, we'll hopefully have a better system :). Drop me a line if you see anything that looks out of place or breaks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoRadagast may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
and Galadriel. He accuses the Brown Wizard of indulging in [[hallucinogenic]] fungus|mushrooms]], and dismisses Radagast's claim about the Necromancer being a true threat.
MyChambers Dictionary give the plurals as snipe for individual and snipes for species. It doesn't give any plurals for woodcock, but I think the same useful distinction is appropriate. Please let me know if you think I've got this wrong Jimfbleak - talk to me?16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by this, and what Wikipedia guideline it violates. IMO, the fact that the words "Pagan" and "Paganism" are not, presently, capitalized like other religions is discriminatory, and the existence of a movement to change that is notable, especially in an article about Pagan Religions. Have you reviewed the names of the signatories to the petition? What is your specific objection?Rosencomet (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My edit does not suggest that anyone sign this petition; I don't even know if unsolicited signatures are welcome. It contains neither "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind". According to the link you offered, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Is there a change that you suggest to the way I worded it?Rosencomet (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You worded it very well; the problem is that it doesn't belong there at all. Wikipedia articles aren't for posting stuff about current petitions, unless said petitions are newsworthy and non-trivial. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was mindful of the spirit in which your edit was intended, so I took the time to write a personal message (instead of transcluding a warning template). I attempted to be courteous and respectful, but I evidently failed to set such a tone.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoRadagast may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
