Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Vagrants, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
Oh, this one I've been breeding for a while. OK - bots I like. They tidy up, and one day, hopefully before I snuff it, they'll help clean up while being cute running round the floor. In the meantime - ClueBot NG (who looks in my head to be a bit tattoed and has trouble walking in a non-simian way at times) says it ""produces very few false positives" but seems to, on occasion, happily just wander about picking up loads of clearly relevant stuff and reverting it. Oh Yeah, with A WARNING, like that makes it more acceptable or, more correct, right. Now I'm all for auto-cleanups, but something that looks like it just picks up major rewrites for a good reason and nukes them at random, instead of a nice little letter saying 'hey, I'm just doing a job here, and I've come across something that looks a little like you've been walking your dog on someone else's lawn, not like I'm accusing you of trespass or anything, hut can we just have a teensy look back and either get the pooper scooper out or explain that actually the fertiliser is lovely for the grass and thank you very much'. And I'd like a bit of interaction before a complete wipeout of correct information, so it can be discussed in a nice, cup of tea type, human way (oh dear - there's the problem). Any response - nope I doubt it. Sometimes notacluebot needs a re-wire :-)) Brieflysentient ( talk) 12:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for helping out on the Fever Tree article. If you can, could you add Lillian Roxon's book as a ref to the Shelley Fabares articles: Shelley!, Johnny Angel, The Things We Did Last Summer, Johnny Loves Me. Caden cool 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
For the work you're doing, adding references to the pages of Pete Brown, Graham Bond, Arthur Brown and others. Mark in wiki ( talk) 08:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If Larkin deliberately seeds his work with misinformation as copyright traps, then I strongly recommend you avoid using it as a source - cf. Jay Robert Nash and the mess that created. DS ( talk) 14:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made a couple of reverts to edits of yours that can be classified as over-tagging. If the article is tagged as needing citations, there is no need to add multiple tags thereafter. Over-tagging disrupts the flow of an article, affects readability and can be understood by some Wikipedians to be disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Hohenloh + 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Brieflysentient ( talk) 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you should have mentioned first of all on the talk page why the article needed a re-write, and that you were going to do it. I have already mentioned the over-tagging, which I feel makes a mess of the sections where it has been inserted, and really puts one off reading further. Otherwise, I admire your enthusiasm. Hohenloh + 10:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oi'll give it foive! (oops, wrong programme.....) Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several mentions of "Anette Andre" on the JBJ page. I don't want to change this in case your source uses this spelling but shouldn't this be Annette Andre (from whom a wikipedia entry exists)? Fitzsimons ( talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Vagrants, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
Oh, this one I've been breeding for a while. OK - bots I like. They tidy up, and one day, hopefully before I snuff it, they'll help clean up while being cute running round the floor. In the meantime - ClueBot NG (who looks in my head to be a bit tattoed and has trouble walking in a non-simian way at times) says it ""produces very few false positives" but seems to, on occasion, happily just wander about picking up loads of clearly relevant stuff and reverting it. Oh Yeah, with A WARNING, like that makes it more acceptable or, more correct, right. Now I'm all for auto-cleanups, but something that looks like it just picks up major rewrites for a good reason and nukes them at random, instead of a nice little letter saying 'hey, I'm just doing a job here, and I've come across something that looks a little like you've been walking your dog on someone else's lawn, not like I'm accusing you of trespass or anything, hut can we just have a teensy look back and either get the pooper scooper out or explain that actually the fertiliser is lovely for the grass and thank you very much'. And I'd like a bit of interaction before a complete wipeout of correct information, so it can be discussed in a nice, cup of tea type, human way (oh dear - there's the problem). Any response - nope I doubt it. Sometimes notacluebot needs a re-wire :-)) Brieflysentient ( talk) 12:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for helping out on the Fever Tree article. If you can, could you add Lillian Roxon's book as a ref to the Shelley Fabares articles: Shelley!, Johnny Angel, The Things We Did Last Summer, Johnny Loves Me. Caden cool 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
For the work you're doing, adding references to the pages of Pete Brown, Graham Bond, Arthur Brown and others. Mark in wiki ( talk) 08:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If Larkin deliberately seeds his work with misinformation as copyright traps, then I strongly recommend you avoid using it as a source - cf. Jay Robert Nash and the mess that created. DS ( talk) 14:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made a couple of reverts to edits of yours that can be classified as over-tagging. If the article is tagged as needing citations, there is no need to add multiple tags thereafter. Over-tagging disrupts the flow of an article, affects readability and can be understood by some Wikipedians to be disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Hohenloh + 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Brieflysentient ( talk) 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you should have mentioned first of all on the talk page why the article needed a re-write, and that you were going to do it. I have already mentioned the over-tagging, which I feel makes a mess of the sections where it has been inserted, and really puts one off reading further. Otherwise, I admire your enthusiasm. Hohenloh + 10:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oi'll give it foive! (oops, wrong programme.....) Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several mentions of "Anette Andre" on the JBJ page. I don't want to change this in case your source uses this spelling but shouldn't this be Annette Andre (from whom a wikipedia entry exists)? Fitzsimons ( talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)