Stalk
Wiki92man, you are invited to the Co-op!
|
Hi there! Wiki92man,
you are invited to
The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please
join us!
I JethroBT (
I'm a Co-op mentor)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
Your edit to List of YouTube personalities
Hi there. I just came by to inform you that I undid your recent removal of several entries on List of YouTube personalities. I did this because the edit notice states that consensus for this article is that entries need to have coverage in reliable sources but not that they need to have their own article. One of the reasons the list exists is to collect personalities that are worth mentioning but not so much that they warrant their own article (yet). As such, your edit summary gave the impression that you only removed the entries because there was no article for them which is not be a reason for removal. If you believe some entries do not meet the criteria determined in the current consensus, feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Regards So Why 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Stalk
Wiki92man, you are invited to the Co-op!
|
|
Hi there! Wiki92man,
you are invited to
The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please
join us!
I JethroBT (
I'm a Co-op mentor)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
Your edit to List of YouTube personalities
Hi there. I just came by to inform you that I undid your recent removal of several entries on List of YouTube personalities. I did this because the edit notice states that consensus for this article is that entries need to have coverage in reliable sources but not that they need to have their own article. One of the reasons the list exists is to collect personalities that are worth mentioning but not so much that they warrant their own article (yet). As such, your edit summary gave the impression that you only removed the entries because there was no article for them which is not be a reason for removal. If you believe some entries do not meet the criteria determined in the current consensus, feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Regards So Why 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)