Hi,
First of all thank you for reviewing my first article! I tried to implement your feedback and take a more encyclopaedic tone, and I hope the adjustments meet the criteria now. I have also added 2 extra sources to back up the information in Functionality and Key Features. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to improve this.
Looking forward to your feedback!
Maratudora ( talk) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
what was the problem with my editing? male is a sex, man is a gender... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronryv ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I left a note at Tony's page, but I've gone and extended rollback indefinitely. Please re-read the policy, in particular when to use it. Most of your edits have been good, but some appear not to have taken the full diff or all the edits made into account. Huggle can be quick, but please don't rush. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I would appreciate If you can help: I'm trying to change the english title Cankar Center to Cankarjev dom. Cankar centre is not an official name of the venue.
Best, Cankarjev dom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankarjevdom ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi L293D, Thank you for your help with the HALIENE draft! I have updated the artist's real name and birthday and found citations for them. I also removed a "peacock term" which may have been Mar11's issue. Advise on how else to improve in order to proceed with the article's approval. Thank you! Walru5hunterofficial ( talk) 17:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Walru5hunterofficial ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arduino 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein ( talk) 00:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Arduino you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Arduino 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You're one month into a two-month probation at AFC, so I've requested some feedback on your recent activity. I have done this believing that it will show you some insights into how to improve your reviewing. The discussion is here. Primefac ( talk) 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Explain why the Baker's dictionary, edited by the renowned Slonimsky, is not a reliable source? In addition, why two legitimate publishing houses are not reliable sources?
Please note that there are no other sources available for this composer beyond those already listed in bibliography and referenced throughout the short bio.
Karel dragoun (
talk) 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I have recived your warning. I am sorry, I thought it would make the page look more organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creeperwyd ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
hi, i am not even "logged in" in this site, and i get a message from you about making some edits about Thomas Hood? i am sure there's gotta be some misunderstanding because i never even search this guy let alone making edits on his page. i am as surprised as annoyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.60.175.66 ( talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed unsourced content, which was original research, with sourced content. I didn't leave an edit summery since I forgot to, though I think reverting my edit just because of that is highly counter productive to the development of wikipedia. ShimonChai ( talk) 20:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am coping the following message from User talk:L293D/About, where it was posted by a new editor, instead of here. I shall also delete that page. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I Did not Even See a Nicktoons Movie on Any 2020 Movie Lists — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangoLoudHouse1234 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the page and tried to include more external links as well as more links to Wiki pages. Profjcknowles ( talk) 12:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HNoMS Kjell 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy ( talk) 16:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
you might be an H-Bridge. There are not that many L293D's around. 104.163.147.121 ( talk) 02:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a hoax and surprisingly real.
108.14.184.128 (
talk) 00:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello L293DP, I hope you are doing well. I have a problem with some edits of mine that you Rolled back, which is now going to cost considerable time & effort to correct. So I did report this issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit§ion=new . And I'm supposed to let you know. Sorry if this is disturbing. It has certainly cost me a lot of time today, and also put me in contention with other editors, which was not necessary. Here is what I wrote to that site:
Greetings. I'm a financially contributing Wikipedia user. I recently had edits I had made on a page Rolled back. This was done by User:L293D. As I understand it, and as an editor named "Amory" explained directly to L293D here ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:TonyBallioni), Rollback is to be used only in cases of Vandalism. If you check the diff: [1] in the right-hand column, I think you'll see that it was indeed a Rollback, and no explanation is given. Furthermore, you can see that my edits were sincere, considered, well-written, added facts (with citation) and were explained as clearly as possible within the 1000-character limit. If someone does not agree with my edits, they can revert with an explanation. It's too late now, the damage is done. But if this does not qualify as vandalism, then would you please at least instruct L293D to wield his newly found authority much more carefully & maturely. This represented much time on my part, and seeing the power of someone to dismiss information as "vandalism" in a cursory manner, without discussion, and leading to flagging & further complications, is not at all encouraging for further contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for reading JohnnyJohnnyG ( talk) 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a 'head's up', guys like Llammakey have been around for quite awhile helping to maintain ship articles, so their edits are usually good edits. If you're unsure, it's probably better to ask them on the talk page instead of reverting them. In this case, they were removing links to pages that were already linked elsewhere in the article, removing "the" before ship's name, adjusting templates and some other minor copy editing. I've reverted it back, but I wanted to let you know why. - theWOLFchild 02:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah ( talk) 07:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello L293D, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to French corvette Alysse (K100) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, in reality I was comparing different versions to understand the editing "war" on that page, I push the button by mistake. I'm not interesting to edit anymore that page because it is clear what's happening inside that school about corporal punishments, a simple google search gives all the necessary information. Hope that other google "walls of shame" will follows for other schools that applies those barbaric methods. Thanks for your constructive and not aggressive feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiorgioba ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't leave comments such as this, Whilst I appreciate you were only joking it's still not really appropriate for an RFA, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 00:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Your stance on the matter does not, Kremlin drone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8402:5F89:1DB9:97D:8DC0:54B7 ( talk) 02:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi L293D, would you mind taking another look at the DYK review of this article? Another editor made a suggestion with respect to your review on the review page. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
What I deleted was a broken template. You screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.161.108 ( talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, re: this CSD, it might be a good idea for you to hold off on CSDing new articles for at least 5 or 10 minutes, especially if they've not been created by newer users, or is not obvious vandalism, a hoax, etc. That would at least give you time to check out the editor creating the page, and to realize, at least in this case, that creator is a long-term editor in good standing who probably knows what he is doing. In such cases, waiting at least 24 hours to see what the editor does before tagging for CSD would be a good idea. On the otherhand, it might be better to ask that editor what they planned to to do before tagging CSD, as the might have forgotten or been otherwise occupied, and unable to continue. I know from personal experience how annoying it can be to have a page deleted while I'm in the middle of working on it. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You just reverted significant edits to the Myron Mixon page because you stated they were not constructive. I don't understand how making substantial corrections to factually inaccurate content and significantly updating a wildly outdated page is not constructive. Can you explain why you would change something in less than 5 minutes without properly reviewing it? Thecea ( talk) 19:40, 27 March 2018
Hello L293D. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context ( CSD A1) and/or content ( CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Dirk labudde. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages ( G10), blatant nonsense ( G1), copyright violations ( G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes ( G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. So Why 14:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arleigh Burke-class destroyer 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 Nick-D -- Nick-D ( talk) 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Arleigh Burke-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer 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 Nick-D -- Nick-D ( talk) 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello - the image description page simply states that the photo is from "c. 1920", which not an actual publication date. We need the work where the image was published (i.e., the book, newspaper, etc.) and the date it was published to be able to use the photo. Thank you. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chengdu J-20 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp ( talk) 10:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Chengdu J-20 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chengdu J-20 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp ( talk) 11:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)