|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I mentioned you in this discussion. I tried to ping you, but wasn't able to find all the letters in your name. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Simple direct links are preferred. Do not remove pipes to them. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
[[A|B]]
into links of the form [[B]]
if [[B]]
is a valid redirect to [[A]]
, or if [[A]]
and [[B]]
both redirect to some other page [[C]]
. The result is a link that has the same target and displays the same text as the original. I do agree that caution is advisable, and there are cases where exceptions may reasonably be made.Hello, Векочел,
If a category has been tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category ( CSD C1), there is really no good reason to take it to CFD for a week-long discussion. It will be deleted more quickly as a CSD C1, while CFD nominations can sometimes last weeks and what are editors going to debate about an empty category? It's unnecessary and I hope you will stop this practice. Only start CFD discussion about categories where a discussion would be fruitful. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Векочел!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to to revert the whole DOB, per WP:DOB, but reverted your cn template instead. Now fixed. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Did you really think this was a good idea, removing the linked reference to her place of birth? You could at least have linked it in the info box. I am asking you now to do that. Please be more careful, and please (as requested above) leave edit summaries! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not change any info-box names so that they do not correspond to (1) article names and (2) names as given in article text. If you want such name changes you need to request article moves (renaming). No other way. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen of Hungary.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Векочел,
Why are you making massive, undiscussed changes, removing religion from Infoboxes where previous editors had added it in? Is there policy regarding this? I was going to revert all of your changes until I saw you were an experienced editor, not a new account, but it seems like you are making changes on a grand scale without discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Векочел Would you mind helping User:CtasACT by going through all the references on the above mentioned article and also ensuring whether they meet Wikipedia's policy or not. The GA review is taking place at- Talk:Haile Selassie/GA2. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help. Regards MSincccc ( talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop doing this! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. I would think you knew that before going about all those faulty changes?! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
You are doing a lot of damage with changes like this. Unless you go back and fix those articles, we are heading for serious trouble. It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
For the most part, I think the categories are, at least in theory, supposed to be limited to women who lived to see their children become monarchs. At the very least, that's the philosophy I was using when considering adding them to the category. 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Children of princesses regnant has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw ( talk) 01:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Your nominations are spurious. Being found disruptive months after creating categories is not a valid reason for deleting them. Please close your nominations immediately. I have commented on the first one, but frankly, a wholesale listing like that is also bordering on the disruptive. ——Serial Number 54129 17:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Sons of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Daughters of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Well caught! That was a truly egregious error... Amazing how long these things can go undetected. Haploidavey ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I mentioned you in this discussion. I tried to ping you, but wasn't able to find all the letters in your name. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Simple direct links are preferred. Do not remove pipes to them. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
[[A|B]]
into links of the form [[B]]
if [[B]]
is a valid redirect to [[A]]
, or if [[A]]
and [[B]]
both redirect to some other page [[C]]
. The result is a link that has the same target and displays the same text as the original. I do agree that caution is advisable, and there are cases where exceptions may reasonably be made.Hello, Векочел,
If a category has been tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category ( CSD C1), there is really no good reason to take it to CFD for a week-long discussion. It will be deleted more quickly as a CSD C1, while CFD nominations can sometimes last weeks and what are editors going to debate about an empty category? It's unnecessary and I hope you will stop this practice. Only start CFD discussion about categories where a discussion would be fruitful. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Векочел!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to to revert the whole DOB, per WP:DOB, but reverted your cn template instead. Now fixed. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Did you really think this was a good idea, removing the linked reference to her place of birth? You could at least have linked it in the info box. I am asking you now to do that. Please be more careful, and please (as requested above) leave edit summaries! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not change any info-box names so that they do not correspond to (1) article names and (2) names as given in article text. If you want such name changes you need to request article moves (renaming). No other way. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen of Hungary.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Векочел,
Why are you making massive, undiscussed changes, removing religion from Infoboxes where previous editors had added it in? Is there policy regarding this? I was going to revert all of your changes until I saw you were an experienced editor, not a new account, but it seems like you are making changes on a grand scale without discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Векочел Would you mind helping User:CtasACT by going through all the references on the above mentioned article and also ensuring whether they meet Wikipedia's policy or not. The GA review is taking place at- Talk:Haile Selassie/GA2. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help. Regards MSincccc ( talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop doing this! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. I would think you knew that before going about all those faulty changes?! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
You are doing a lot of damage with changes like this. Unless you go back and fix those articles, we are heading for serious trouble. It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
For the most part, I think the categories are, at least in theory, supposed to be limited to women who lived to see their children become monarchs. At the very least, that's the philosophy I was using when considering adding them to the category. 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Children of princesses regnant has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw ( talk) 01:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Your nominations are spurious. Being found disruptive months after creating categories is not a valid reason for deleting them. Please close your nominations immediately. I have commented on the first one, but frankly, a wholesale listing like that is also bordering on the disruptive. ——Serial Number 54129 17:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Sons of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Daughters of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Well caught! That was a truly egregious error... Amazing how long these things can go undetected. Haploidavey ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)