Hello, I'm Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Q Project. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Arjayay ( talk) 17:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia - you have made a number of edits, which I am sure were good faith, but which do not comply with our policies and guidelines.
As examples, including contact information at Halewood Academy, adding a mission statement at NewSpace India Limited and putting a title above the lead at Fledborough and American Friends Service Committee. May I suggest you spend some time looking at similar articles to those you are editing, to get a better feel of our WP:Manual of Style - Best wishes - Arjayay ( talk) 17:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for your valuable feedback on my recent edits. I appreciate your guidance in helping me understand the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

I apologize for the errors in my edits, particularly including contact information at Halewood Academy, adding a mission statement at NewSpace India Limited, and placing a title above the lead at Fledborough and American Friends Service Committee. I understand now that these actions do not align with the WP:Manual of Style.

I will take your suggestion to heart and spend more time studying similar articles to gain a better understanding of the proper formatting and style guidelines. Your advice will undoubtedly help me improve my contributions to Wikipedia.

Once again, I appreciate your assistance and thank you for taking the time to provide me with constructive feedback. Barrel of cheese ( talk) 14:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reaching out and providing me with the necessary feedback regarding the external links I added to the main body of the Q Project article. I appreciate your guidance in ensuring that the article adheres to the proper formatting and guidelines.

I apologize for the oversight on my part and understand that relevant external links should be included in the designated "External links" section at the end of the article.

If I have any further questions or need clarification, I will not hesitate to reach out to you on your talk page. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. Barrel of cheese ( talk) 14:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hits 93 Volume 2, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Please note, we do not cite websites with user-generated content, such as IMDB and Discogs, or Wikipedia itself, as these are not WP:Reliable sources. Please see WP:RSP for a resume of the acceptability of the most common sites - although this can never be an exhaustive list - Arjayay ( talk) 17:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding my recent edit on Hits 93 Volume 2. I appreciate your reminder about the importance of citing reliable sources when making changes to an article.

I apologize for not including proper references in my edit. I understand the significance of providing verifiable sources to support the information shared on Wikipedia. I will review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to ensure I adhere to the proper citation practices.

I also appreciate your clarification regarding the types of sources that are considered reliable. I now understand that websites with user-generated content, such as IMDB and Discogs, as well as Wikipedia itself, are not considered reliable sources. I will keep this in mind and make sure to consult more reputable sources when adding references.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and providing guidance on maintaining the quality and reliability of Wikipedia articles. Barrel of cheese ( talk) 14:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Welcome to wikipedia editing. I have spot checked a number of your edits and some are constructive and helpful, but a significant number are either unnecessary changes, or introduces various types of errors into articles. As you have made a very large number of edits in a small period of time, can I encourage you to slow down and be more careful. You could perhaps consider engaging with the wikipedia adventure to learn more. In particular, please be aware that your regional variation of English spelling and grammar should not be used to "correct" that already in articles; that content should not be copied from sources and should always be written neutrally rather than sounding like a press release; and that some of what you have assumed are grammar mistakes are actually correct and you "fixing" them changes the meaning of what is being said, probably without you realising. Thank you Melcous ( talk) 01:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reaching out to me about my recent Wikipedia edits. I appreciate your feedback; I'll be more careful in the future. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. I understand the importance of being cautious and accurate in my edits, and I'll take your advice seriously. Your tips on language variations, original content, and neutrality are helpful, and I'll keep them in mind. I'm open to learning and improving my editing skills through resources like Wikipedia Adventure. Thanks again for bringing these issues to my attention. Barrel of cheese ( talk) 12:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Thanks for your edits to Annabel Langbein, which were largely helpful. I noticed one edit you made was to add in a wikilink for the term cookbook. There is some guidance in the manual of style about overlinking; basically, you don't need to link to everyday words that will be understood by most readers. Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk) 21:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reaching out and providing feedback on my edits to the Annabel Langbein page. I appreciate your acknowledgment that most of the edits were helpful.

Regarding the addition of the wikilink for the term "cookbook," I apologize for any overlinking. I will keep the guidance in the manual of style in mind moving forward and refrain from linking everyday words that are commonly understood by readers.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I value your input. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know. Barrel of cheese ( talk) 00:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hare–Clark electoral system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. 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) 06:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:AWW. Many of your edits have added content which are not in keeping with these guidelines. Please do not use unsupported/unattributed subjective terms to describe people or places (like "picturesque" or "esteemed" or "renowned" or "prominent" or "accomplished" or "distinguished" or similar). Per WP:AWW. If someone else has used such terms to describe a subject, please attribute that opinion to someone (with references). Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Please also do not editorialise or embellish by telling the reader what they should think (including describing things as "notable" or "remarkable" or "fascinating" or that something is "worth mentioning" or that someone's career should be considered to include "roles of significance" or similar). Per MOS:EDITORIAL. Editing an article in a manner which only adds extra flowery words, without adding new information or clarifying content, is not helpful to the project. Please also re-read the related note from Melcous above. (About how content should always "always be written neutrally", and why many of your edits are not in keeping with the related WP:NPOV guideline.) Guliolopez ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

For example, this edit, in which you changed the description of the subject from "a song by [Swae Lee]" to "a captivating musical creation by [Swae Lee]", served only to add a pointlessly flowery, subjective and unclear description of the subject. The subject is a song. A record. A single. Changing this to "captivating musical creation" is, frankly, silly. And introduces oblique and obfuscating language that does nothing to aid the reader (and hence the project). A significant number of your other edits follow the same pattern. Where you've added words (without explanation or edit summary) which, as here, only serve to add errant syntax or additional words - that appear to be "just for the sake of it". And do nothing to improve the reader's understanding of the topic. What is the point of this? Guliolopez ( talk) 16:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho ( talk) 08:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply