![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi -- I'd like to mildly protest your addition of {{
copypaste}}
and {{
self-published}}
to
Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I got the information from both the Emmy website and the IMDB's Emmy award listings, and did not merely cut and paste the information.
Trivialist (
talk) 02:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- I'd like to mildly protest your addition of {{
copypaste}}
and {{
self-published}}
to
Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I got the information from both the Emmy website and the IMDB's Emmy award listings, and did not merely cut and paste the information.
Trivialist (
talk) 02:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Checkingfax. You recently moved a photograph of AHR from the Gallery to the article start. Thank you, that looks a lot better. I have been trying to work out how to do that ! The article I created has had a comment added in its heading that it is an Orphan, which it isn't as " Ernest Frank Richardson" is a link. The link seemed to have got lost at one stage. Could you possibly delete that comment for me? TimothyWF ( talk) 16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I saw one of your edits in my watchlist, placing/removing the linkrot template - I assume to access the embedded link to reflinks?
You might be interested in:
(I tend to list useful tools like that, on my userpage, for easy access :)
HTH. – Quiddity ( talk) 07:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Checkingfax, Please be careful when edit, you've removed the "Ƀ" symbol from infobox and not restored it. That's all, happy editing :)-- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, that's me again. Maybe you have errors in your text editor, like Chrisarnesen. Please see your last edit. BTW, what 'phantom box' you mean, can I help you? -- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone just deleted that edit, what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Checkingfax, please read Help:Categories, you see that your category has been already added to Category:Bitcoin. -- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Your edit
[1] had an odd edit summary in the part which is usually prefilled by MediaWiki when a section is edited. The section heading was [[LeSean McCoy]]
but the edit summary instead contained <a href="/info/en/?search=LeSean_McCoy" title="LeSean McCoy">LeSean McCoy</a>
. This is the html code produced by [[LeSean McCoy]]
, but it shouldn't end up in the edit summary. Did you just click the "edit" link at the section and type "response" after the prefilled edit summary? Are you using any special editing tool? If you now click the edit link at
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#LeSean McCoy then does the prefilled edit summary say /* LeSean McCoy */
(as it should), or the wrong /* <a href="/info/en/?search=LeSean_McCoy" title="LeSean McCoy">LeSean McCoy</a> */
, or something else?
PrimeHunter (
talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, I'm curious why you chose to delete those two links while leaving the rest? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that you directed me to the Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account page, which implies you think I may be in violation of Wikipedia:Advocacy or Wikipedia:COI. I read all three of those articles, and I'm here to assure you that instead I fall into the category of "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest". Is there something I did specifically to raise your suspicions? Is there something I can do to allay them? Cheers, Chris Arnesen 21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
for the change in your signature in the Caitlyn Jenner RfC. I thought it was a typo that distorted it. Cheers. - The Gnome ( talk) 00:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Please don't troll other editor' talk pages with inappropriate "last warning" templates, especially when you are on the opposite side of the discussion I am taking part in the article talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Hello. You really should stop adding Template:Sister project links to random articles without checking if the links actually work. For instance, Philippe Pinel has no presence in any of the sister projects besides Commons. All the other links that you try to provide go nowhere. Mymis ( talk) 00:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC){{
wikimedia}}
template does not generate any broken links; only potential for growth. Editors are adding video, audio, wikibooks to their articles everyday, and news articles are always in the wings, etc. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Please only use the appropriate Wikimedia property link that has actual content. In Sir and Star, only commons had material, thus one should only have used {{ commons}} or other appropriate commons template. In this case {{ commons category|Olema, California}} should have been the one. Olema is too broad of a search, so the category link would probably be best.
You put a photo between the ToC and first heading. The TOC must come right before the heading as any material between the ToC and first heading will not be read by those with screen readers. As the earthquake photo didn't have anything to do with the article, I removed it.
You put too many portal links. If one is needed, I generally put only one geographic portal, usually the one closest to to the article. In this case, that would be San Francisco. When there is no See also section, then it goes into the External links section. I removed them all, but add back the ones you think are necessary. Bgwhite ( talk) 04:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The name of the museum is " Van Gogh Museum" with a capital V. Dutch last names starting with "van" are always capitalized when used without the first name. So it is "Vincent van Gogh", "Van Gogh", and "Van Gogh Museum". See also Dutch name and Tussenvoegsel. – Editør ( talk) 11:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks WP:TAFI.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
After some of yours and other users edits a Fansite template has been added to the Allegra Versace article. Me and another user do not agree with it, and has raised the issue at the talk page. But take a look if you find time for it. Thanks again.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Hey there: FYI, no more dead links on [[ Planned Parenthood]]. Hip, hip, hooray! Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
07:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Hi Checkingfax. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
…at Brighton Beach. See this Talk entry, and the Talk entry on the BB talk page that it cites: [2]. Hours of time were spent checking sources and dealing with plagiarism in the article. Please do not support massive reversions that undo hard editorial work. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 18:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)What is with this edit [3]? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Doc James, the two URL question is a great question for the developer of Checklinks:
Dispenser as that is the way Checklinks fixes the dead URLs sometimes. Sometimes Checklinks incorporates the live URL and replaces the dead URL, while other times Checklinks appends the live URL to the dead URL. Not sure on its heuristics but it does not break anything. Maybe Checklinks appends when the link is not confirmed 100% dead? Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
dead link|date=November 2015}}
. We are supposed to try to fix dead links and not delete them for two years because it takes up to 18 months for dead links to be replaced by archived versions. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC){{
dead link|date=November 2015}}
. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The changes you accepted messed up the References. Bazj ( talk) 16:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
</ref>
tag which I fixed right after you brought it up. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
10:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Hey Checkingfax. When adding statements to Wikidata, please visit first the talk page of the property to ensure you're using it in the appropriate way. I found a couple of wrong edits, e.g. stated in should only be used in references and not as a statement itself. located on astronomical body and located in the administrative territorial entity are only for geographic locations and not persons. -- Pasleim ( talk) 09:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
10:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)I do not understand why the Michael Ealy edit was reverted. HE shared this information. If minor info is not supposed to be included why is it all throughout wikipedia? It ons so many articles from Meryl Streep Madonna Kendra Wilkinson The Kartrashians. Information like not just name and dob of birth, but place, time, length, whether it was breech or in the caul or natural. THAT information is too much. Stating the child's name and birthdate is not. Thank You. 173.66.63.102 ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Go Hokies ( talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Checkingfax -- On Oct 2/2015 you made a series of edits to the Linda Rondstadt article. I'm probably missing something, but one of your edits really puzzles me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Linda_Ronstadt&diff=683768226&oldid=683767540
In this edit, you added a footnote to the final sentence of the lead section of the article. Your new footnote contains nothing but references to other, existing footnotes. Your footnote appears to be intended to support that final sentence of the lead section: "On July 28, 2014, she was awarded one of the twelve 2013 National Medals of Arts and Humanities." But when I click on each of the other footnotes to which your footnote refers, I find no support for that final sentence. In fact many of the notes to which it refers are for news items published long before July 28, 2014.
(I was looking at your footnote because an anon recently edited the article and changed that final sentence of the lead section. The anon's edit was flagged as pending, and I wanted to ascertain whether his edit was justified.)
Anyhow, what's up your edit? What am I missing here? Thanks. -- WikiPedant ( talk) 21:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
refn}}
template to bundle many refs in to one to unclutter things. The refs are at the end of the lead intending to support the whole lead not just the final sentence. Personally, IMHO, if a lead is well written there is no need for any references in the lead. There is nothing in the lead of the Ronstadt article that should be contentious enough to require a redundant reference since all lead items are supposed to be mentioned and referenced in the article body already. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)I was following Wikipedia's rules, or at least the rules as i read them last Friday.
On that day i noticed that Wikipedia editors and crawlers had been editing my references. In doing so, they changed dates to YYYY-MM-DD format.
This weekend i took time to read the Wikipedia citation pages and fix all of my references in line with Wikipedia guidelines.
I put all references under their proper citation types. On the citation types i used ({{ cite journal}}, {{ cite news}}, {{ cite web}}, {{ cite AV media}} , and {{ cite press release}}), Wikipedia states 'The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD.'
That is why i changed the date format.
This morning i read your message and then i checked your link. On the page it said 'Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style'.
When i checked that link it said 'Although nearly any consistent style may be used [...] The YYYY-MM-DD format should [...] be limited to Gregorian calendar dates where the year is after 1582.'
Long story short: Wikipedia doesn't care what the date format is as long as it is consistent.
I edited ALL references - although they are all different than some of them had been before, they are now all consistent.
Before today, the date format on references had never been consistent as long as i have been on Wikipedia, as you can see here.
Having said that, I can use mdy format if it is necessary to revert the dates. It may take some time to make the changes (about a day to fix everything), so be patient.
Ps. I fixed all disambiguation links; Wikipedia's internal links on the page should link fine now.
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)I undid the edit you accepted in the CFS article, as it was unsourced and obviously WP:OR. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
03:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Checkingfax, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrike Σagle 08:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
I filled in all the bare urls in the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration article. It turned out I had written the urls down wrong and that's why they wouldn't work, but they are fixed now and the refs filled in. I put the article up for peer review too, because I'd like to maybe get it to GA someday. Thanks for your help. ☺ White Arabian Filly ( Neigh) 23:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for working on some of our disambiguation pages. Could you explain the creation of new sections like "People" and "Names" to DAB pages that already have sections for surname and given name? I could maybe understand it if the entries under them were pseudonyms or something (although I would probably name the section differently), but instead you've put more people that simply have the subject as their given or surname. I don't understand the reasoning here. -- Fyrael ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)It seems like you're in agreement with me now that removing the links in unnecessary. However, Dwayne Johnson isn't credited as 'Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson' in the Fast & Furious films: since his first appearance in Fast Five, he's only been credited as Dwayne Johnson. I can't revert any of your edits without violating the three revert rule, but would you be willing to undo your edit? Thank you Corvoe (speak to me) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Checkingfax ( talk) 17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Can you give me more information on what you mean? What is a lead? Do you have any other suggestions? edit: gah! I'm messing up your page trying to post this. sooo sorry about that :-( Bali88 ( talk) 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I figured it out. Do you know much about how they require the citations? I have all the information cited but I was worried that somehow I messed it up. For instance, If I get three paragraphs out of one news article, can I put the citation at the end of those paragraphs? Or do I need to put a citation following every single fact in those three paragraphs? Bali88 ( talk) 05:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh gosh, I'm sure that would be a better way to do the citations! Do you think they will reject it the way it is? What I was asking about is if I pull 10 different facts from a single article and post all of those facts in a couple different paragraphs, if it's okay to just put the citation at the end of the paragraphs or if I need to cite each individual fact. I'm not sure how picky people are about that. Bali88 ( talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, you had mentioned too many subheaders, is this a problem? I thought it made it more readable. Is this something they pick on when they review it for submission? Do you have any suggestions? Also, thanks for fixing all the little bugs on my page! Also, do you or anyone else think you can read through it and tell me if the article gives a clear picture of the case? I mean, it makes sense to me because I've been studying the case for awhile but I want it to be written so that someone without any knowledge of the case has a clear picture of what went on. Are there are any other helpful people that you know here on wikipedia who wouldn't mind reading it over? Bali88 ( talk) 22:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with my article. I appreciate it so much. What do you think of the style of the article? I attempted to merge this information with the "David Camm" article and all my work was deleted citing "unencyclopedic style" without any advice as to how to make it work. It was more than a little bit disheartening. Any advice? Bali88 ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link I installed, which led to the NTSB release of the CVR transcript. That one really stumped me. Much appreciated. EditorASC ( talk) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your inquiry about my problem staying logged in to Wikipedia. I don't switch back and forth from PC to iPad. I use my iPad exclusively. Thanks again. Strudjum Strudjum ( talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you so much for using VisualEditor. Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.
While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters…" tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.
The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.
Issues you might consider:
The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes.
Please leave your views on the MediaWiki feedback page (your regular username/password works there), or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages are important to you.
Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Seems Rendition (2007) was left off filmography list. I can't edit, seems you can. Chenry64052 ( talk) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- slakr\ talk / 03:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be mistaken on who is editing improperly. Per policy, claims that have been challenged must NOT be restored without appropriate inline citations that verify each claim made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Checkingfax, I was looking at the tip you gave me for ProveIt, and I like it. But is it supposed to fill in the fields automatically with other information embedded in the web reference (is that what you mean by meta-data)?
Is a URL the website http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/yard-garden/flowers/growing-petunias/ or is the URL and web citation different?
I'm giving you a nice thank you gift on your talk page for all your help and especially for the prove it tool. -- Cityside ( let's talk! - contribs) 19:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I included the fact that Bruce underwent a gender transition in the Background section in the Keeping Up with the Kardashians instead of adding so many repetitive notes. Also, the reference that you keep adding into all these articles is incorrect. "Leibovitz, Annie (June 1, 2015). "Introduci.." Leibovitz did NOT write the article that the source is linked to, she just took the pictures. Buzz Bissinger wrote the article and his name should be used in the reference. Mymis ( talk) 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, in the future please just do multiple smaller edits, like everyone else. This use did not justify locking out other editors, even for only 12 minutes. The In use template is for major rewrites. Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have page locking. [...] On the other hand we do have {{
in use}} tags, which can be used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit. The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done.
Mandruss, In nearly 8,000 edits I have only used {{ in use}} twice but after losing four edits in a row to the hyperedited UCCS article I envoked it with a reasonable cap. It's permissable to leave it up for a couple of days if you're that actively editing, but I don't go there.
The In use
template message is placed at the top of a page you are actively editing for a short period of time. The tag is intended to inform people that someone is currently working on the article, thereby reducing edit conflicts. Please do not leave it in place for more than the few hours at most that should be necessary, as doing so may unnecessarily discourage others from contributing to the article. If it has been up for more than two hours since the last edit, it should be removed. Specifying periods of several days or longer for this template goes against the spirit of simply avoiding edit conflicts; please only use it for sessions where you are actively editing the article.
If you wish to indicate that an article is being rebuilt over a longer period of time consider the {{
Under construction}}
template. That template encourages others to edit the article while indicating that it is a
work in progress.
To use, just add {{In use|time=~~~~~}}
at the top of the article you want to work on. If you want to reserve it for a specific length of time and optionally, a message, use {{In use|time (message)}}
. Alternatively, if only one section of the page is being edited, you may place this template at the top of that section using {{In use|section}}
. Please remember to remove the In use note as soon as you're finished editing.
Using this template will place the including article in Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit.
Cheers! Checkingfax ( talk) 08:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick heads up. No editor can order others not to revert an edit, so that just makes you look silly, not to mention combative. Cheers,― Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reverted a revert relating to pedicures. Please be aware that the article you may be reverting may be subject to Wikipedia's "1 revert" or WP:1RR policy, and I wouldn't want you to get in trouble for making an otherwise fair edit. - SocraticOath ( talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say it's both clever and useful, and I'm impressed! (Thanks for your good work at the Teahouse and contributions elsewhere, too.) — GrammarFascist contribs talk 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Natalie.Desautels|GrammarFascist|Checkingfax|Jules78120}}
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}}
{ Talk } 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
...and another quick note that I like the new sig color scheme better, too. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 01:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello. After seeing this edit, I'm wondering if you are familiar with the use of Dabfix. The tool is merely giving suggestions about what could be fixed or added on a dab page, you're not supposed to blindly throw everything it spits out into the disambiguation page. -- Midas02 ( talk) 03:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Checkingfax, despite my earlier remarks about your reckless use of Dabfix, you have continued to use it as a fire and forget tool, for which it is not intended. I advise you to have a proper read of WP:MOSDAB to understand how the MOSDAB guidelines really work, and do this before you continue to use this tool.
As of now I will revert ALL of your changes using Dabfix, since none of them have been respecting the guidelines. Feel free to get back to me when you feel you have got a better understanding of the guidelines. -- Midas02 ( talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm no biologist, but the binomial name "Belinkafinac" for the banana seems odd to me. Do you have a source for it? Regards, -- Komischn ( talk) 22:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
22:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 16 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Persoonia terminalis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the type specimen of Persoonia terminalis (pictured) was collected 3.4 km (2.1 mi) south of the Torrington pub in New South Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Persoonia terminalis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Edit Quest! |
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |