![]() | This page 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. |
Hello, I'm
Berrely. I noticed that in
this edit to
Digital zoom, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. — Yours,
Berrely •
Talk∕
Contribs
19:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
You're not even autoconfirmed and you're already a vandal-fighting machine! Good job! Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 08:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
If you don't do so, it can cause issues with the text changing and can be confusing for other editors - as documented on the UW template pages, you can do this by adding "subst:" to the start of the template name, like {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}}
. Many thanks!
Ed6767
talk!
11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Tell Binkster to stop accusing random people of being some phantom editor and reverting edits of everyone living in Oregon because he has a cock the size of a fruit fly's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.255.20 ( talk) 09:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
You tagged my page for edit-warring, something I haven't done. If I see you do that again I will report. Govvy ( talk) 10:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The addition I made with regard to Diane Gujuarti was completely accurate. The wikipedia article on her says that her nomination failed, which alone qualifies her as a failed nominee during the Obama Adninistration. But when renominated this year, the Judiciary Committee supported her unanimously. Obviously she generated no controversy. So I don't see what the problem was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:8829:6C6:2F09:15A ( talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ed6767/TimtcfTHWh
Ed6767
talk!
19:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact those events and appearances haven't been published in any sources that meet WP:RS criteria means that they're not particularly noteworthy. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be Curriculum Vitaes. The article has already been tagged to read like an advertisement for some time now. Please stop reintroducing the material. 73.247.181.71 ( talk) 19:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Body positivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerie. 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) 06:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbie here. You reverted my very first edit... only a few minutes after i did it wow.
I removed that statement because 1. Demographic statistics (shared here on wiki) don't support the statement 2. I checked the given source and it doesn't support the statement
Is it more constructive now? :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devlet-i Kızılbaş ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither WP:DRIVEBY nor WP:CITENEED are policies. The first is an essay and the second is an information page. If you want to heavily tag an article, please describe your concerns on the article talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PROIV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note this regarding an XfD that was raised almost immediately the one you participated in for the same article) Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pyrite Pro: Sorry if I stepped over any line by reducing the hatnotes on Body positivity (not the ones you added). I am having a hard time seeing where the gaps are though. The reason given - in 2020 - for originally adding the ref improve tag was "too many blogs as sources". But the blogs that I noticed are (probably) appropriate for a social science-related topic.
Maybe it's just me, but when there are hatnotes instead of inline tags, I find it very hard to improve the sourcing, especially when, as in this case, there appears - on the face of it - to be lots throughout the body of the page. Your ES said "too many unsupported claims and too many dodgy sources (blogs)", (not an exact quote!): Do you mind pointing them out to the semi-clueless, by appending some inline tags? I like to improve where I can, but I need some pointers to start me off.
I am adding my rough count of sources, and some material from research - hopefully RS - to the talk page, too. Thanks 49.177.107.107 ( talk) 07:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Hello, I'm
Berrely. I noticed that in
this edit to
Digital zoom, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. — Yours,
Berrely •
Talk∕
Contribs
19:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
You're not even autoconfirmed and you're already a vandal-fighting machine! Good job! Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 08:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
If you don't do so, it can cause issues with the text changing and can be confusing for other editors - as documented on the UW template pages, you can do this by adding "subst:" to the start of the template name, like {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}}
. Many thanks!
Ed6767
talk!
11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Tell Binkster to stop accusing random people of being some phantom editor and reverting edits of everyone living in Oregon because he has a cock the size of a fruit fly's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.255.20 ( talk) 09:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
You tagged my page for edit-warring, something I haven't done. If I see you do that again I will report. Govvy ( talk) 10:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The addition I made with regard to Diane Gujuarti was completely accurate. The wikipedia article on her says that her nomination failed, which alone qualifies her as a failed nominee during the Obama Adninistration. But when renominated this year, the Judiciary Committee supported her unanimously. Obviously she generated no controversy. So I don't see what the problem was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:8829:6C6:2F09:15A ( talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ed6767/TimtcfTHWh
Ed6767
talk!
19:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact those events and appearances haven't been published in any sources that meet WP:RS criteria means that they're not particularly noteworthy. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be Curriculum Vitaes. The article has already been tagged to read like an advertisement for some time now. Please stop reintroducing the material. 73.247.181.71 ( talk) 19:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Body positivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerie. 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) 06:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbie here. You reverted my very first edit... only a few minutes after i did it wow.
I removed that statement because 1. Demographic statistics (shared here on wiki) don't support the statement 2. I checked the given source and it doesn't support the statement
Is it more constructive now? :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devlet-i Kızılbaş ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither WP:DRIVEBY nor WP:CITENEED are policies. The first is an essay and the second is an information page. If you want to heavily tag an article, please describe your concerns on the article talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PROIV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note this regarding an XfD that was raised almost immediately the one you participated in for the same article) Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pyrite Pro: Sorry if I stepped over any line by reducing the hatnotes on Body positivity (not the ones you added). I am having a hard time seeing where the gaps are though. The reason given - in 2020 - for originally adding the ref improve tag was "too many blogs as sources". But the blogs that I noticed are (probably) appropriate for a social science-related topic.
Maybe it's just me, but when there are hatnotes instead of inline tags, I find it very hard to improve the sourcing, especially when, as in this case, there appears - on the face of it - to be lots throughout the body of the page. Your ES said "too many unsupported claims and too many dodgy sources (blogs)", (not an exact quote!): Do you mind pointing them out to the semi-clueless, by appending some inline tags? I like to improve where I can, but I need some pointers to start me off.
I am adding my rough count of sources, and some material from research - hopefully RS - to the talk page, too. Thanks 49.177.107.107 ( talk) 07:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)