Jump to content

User:L293D/Archives/2018-2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pending changes reviewer granted

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

[edit]

I see you recently accepted this pending change to February 2. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the Jackie Burroughs article so I could add it to February 2 and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

MicroProse Software Edits by the Co Founder, Wild Bill Stealey

[edit]

Hello from Wild Bill,

I am the Co-Founder and former CEO of MicroProse Software of Hunt Valley Md.

My linedin profile is here:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jw-wild-bill-stealey-47b25/

You can reach me at jwstealey@ient.com or on SKYPE at ientcustservice.

I was trying to put correct information in the page. It was all rejected and I am not sure why?

It is all true and the facts.

How do I get those edits back?

Thanks, JW Wild Bill Stealey — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWStealey (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


@JWStealey:The content you added was so unencyclopedic - "We also sold", "When we had any real money", "I have to go back to real work now but back later to fix some more things below that are very wrong." that it is considered vandalism. An encyclopedic way of saying it would be more like "the company also sold", rather than "We also sold". You are welcome to improve that page, but remember to use a formal style and supply your text with good sources to reference your claims. Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Dylan Howard

[edit]

Why did you revert me? His role in trying to discredit HW's accusers is confirmed by top RS (NYT, the New Yorker) and is not disputed. ANother thing: Why are the dozen or so accusations of sexual harassment against Howard being removed from the article? 128.135.96.210 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

hi 128.135.96.210 and L293D, chiming in here to provide some thoughts.
while the information you provided is indeed confirmed by top RS, it seems as if you didn't fully read through the articles as many of the facts were different than you'd included in the article. you mentioned that weinstein offered to pay howard $20,000 a month, but the article states that weinstein offered to pay A. J. Benza that money. see this quote:
"He said Mr. Weinstein suggested that Mr. Benza pose as an author “writing a hit job,’’ so he could call potential sources to learn what they were saying about the producer. Mr. Weinstein discussed paying Mr. Benza up to $20,000 a month and providing a list of contacts, Mr. Benza said, though the producer never followed through. Mr. Weinstein’s spokeswoman denied that he had proposed the scheme."
as such, i removed this mention from the page, and will be adding it into A. J. Benza's page.
your paragraph sounded like howard was conspiring with weinstein, but each article states that howard helped while he was under the impression that weinstein had not done anything wrong. added clarification surrounding that.
a few additional notes:
you're right that sexual harassment claims seem to have been deleted from his page in the past. however, articles state that it was only one accusation, not dozens. i've re-added in this information with proper sourcing.
the verbatim repetition of unwanted material in the lead and the controversy section is unnecessary, as per MOS:LEADCITE. other individuals who are facing similar controversy, such as Aziz Ansari, Mario Batali, and Oliver Stone don't duplicate this material in the lead, at least not at the time of this post.
i cleaned up your sourcing and provided further information such as author names and titles. there's a button when you edit that says "cite" and you can easily add this information in there. also, i saw you used your references numerous times. rather than re-sourcing each time, you can provide a reference name and just include that in any additional sources. that keeps the reference section looking clean without duplication.
hope this helps. going to cross-post this on the talk page for dylan howard, too. looking forward to any other feedback you may have. feel free to respond here, on his talk page, or on my own talk page. thanks. CanoeUnlined (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Template that might be of interest

[edit]

Hi, I was inspired by your user page styling. I created the template User:Bellezzasolo/UserPage based off it. In particular, it is quite easy to maintain - for example, try 

{{User:Bellezzasolo/UserPage|border=navy|background_normal=lightgreen|
text_normal=navy|text_highlight=lightgreen|background_select=navy|user_title_color=green}}

I thought that might be of interest. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks great! I am impressed by your wikisyntax skill -- with all those {{BASEPAGENAME}}s, I am completely lost. Besides, I claim no ownership of my userpage -- I stole different parts of it from different users. Also, I noticed that on your userpage, you have a userbox saying that you would like to have your own operation system and that funny because actually am editing on my own homemade browser. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

El Salvador Edit

[edit]

Hi! I'm pretty sure I undid your revision to my edit on the El Salvador page and wanted to clarify that it was not my intention. I meant to use the citation for a fact stated in another paragraph and got super confused when trying to fix my mistake. I am super new to editing on Wiki so my apologies if that came across as anything other than a mistake. Russovidal (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The weatherstar music artist

[edit]

You s Theweathercat2002 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful input. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Demoreasimpson

[edit]

Just a heads up, I mentioned you in this ANI thread. You are not the subject of the thread, you were just mentioned because you warned the user who is the subject of the thread. Just wanted to make you aware. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:59 on February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. To me it's obvious that they are sockpuppets, but I am not am admin, so I can't block either. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My (in)famous sense of humor

[edit]

I realize you're probably joking, but just in case =) I can't undo those edits automatically, and I'm too lazy to do it manually. BytEfLUSh Talk 03:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@BytEfLUSh: I actually really thought you had written this, but now I see, ha ha ha. I guess 2600:1017:B80D:43B0:413E:3D16:7761:F558 really has a sense of humor. Still, I really laughed when I saw your 'warning'. :-) L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you get mixed up with your cap lock when creating your account? There is absolutely no logic in your capitalizing certain letters and not others. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
It does sound like something I would write (bar a few words), so I'll give him the credit for that. =D
Ah, no... And I hate that question. =) I was a teen, thinking I'll be the next Kevin Mitnick, just needed a cool, broken caps name. And so it stuck for the past 18 years or so. =) I also hate changing usernames, no matter how stupid they are, and I had this one on Wiki for the past 12 years. BytEfLUSh Talk 03:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Per the Manual of Style, Wikipedia gives precedence to gender self-identification as reported by reliable sources. This includes the use of appropriate pronouns corresponding to the identity (e.g., trans women typically use she/her and trans men typically use he/him). Further, per this part of the Manual of Style, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. Your edits were counter to the one or both of these aspects of the Manual of Style and have been reverted or removed. Repeated vandalism like this can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see, and I humbly apologize. I had not read that section of the manual of style. For a bioligical male to become bioligically female would require changing the DNA and chromosomes of every one of his body cells, but I understand that to become socially female, hair transplant and a few other treatments are enough. Sorry for dirupting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arduino Nano (February 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Arduino instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This appears to duplicate an existing article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello, L293D! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


55th Army

[edit]

Hi, the blue division bent under pressure from the 55th army in the battle of krasny bor, but the division did not break, which is why I made the change. --2001:8003:548A:5600:BD2F:662B:69B1:9637 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Forczyk states that Massed Soviet artillery fire pulverized many of the forward Spanish positions, creating gaps into which tank-infantry assault groups quickly rushed. In a few hours, the 63rd Guards Rifle Division had fought its way into Krasny Bor and Mishkino, where Spanish rear-area troops and engineers desperately fought to fend off encroaching T-34 tanks. That sounds like a breakthrough to me. He also states While the Spanish troops fought tenaciously, they suffered 3,645 casualties, which effectively destroyed one of the division's three regiments and wrecked their morale. Afterwards, Lindemann told Kuchler that 'I don't trust the Spaniards any longer', and requested that they be replaced.Kges1901 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism Accusation Interpro Stradalli Cycling team

[edit]

I think you are incorrect saying my changes on that page were vandalism and reverting it. I did fail to update the date accessed for the source at the bottom of the page but if you had chosen to do so you might have learned that the changes made reflected that the team changed its name and changed its roster which were the same changes I made. I feel that when you take the step to accuse someone of vandalism you should try and get that right. I apologize for not updating the source access date to reflect that but you might have gone a tad too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shermanm365 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

citation added

[edit]

thank you L293D, I've added the source of citation now. Pleayo (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Great. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Claim that my edit was disruptive

[edit]

I disagree that my edit to the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center page was disruptive. I added examples of the aversive used and had a citation. It is not vandalization when sourced and posted in good faith. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpotisch (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

First, you replaced 'The' with 'IopThe' on the top line, wich IS disruptive, and second, the content you added lower was not sourced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

[edit]
Thank you for thanking :D Haha Shamvilraza (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

well; you made a mistake

[edit]

If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Well, I think you did make a mistake, concerning your revert of my edits in Murder (German law), which were quite constructive. For one, the article had previously left out the systematically rather important battery-with-deadly-outcome. For another, it had said that it's not a with-deadly-outcome crime if there was murderous intent, which simply is not true (and which would mean that a pirate [for non-greedy reasons] who unintentionally kills would get at least ten years, while a pirate who intentionally kills without fulfilling one of the aggravating circumstances of Mord could theoretically get off with five.--131.159.76.38 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I was mislead by the diff function into believing you had deleted the previous paragraph. Sorry. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Buddy Roemer edits

[edit]

The two additions were constructive. The first was about very effective TV ads by Roemer. The second gave context as to another reason why Edwards left the race. At the time, it was discussed more than the point already made in the article, that Edwards dropped out to deny Roemer the chance to build a coalition. Howardekatz (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Autophagy

[edit]

Hello! Thank you very much for looking on Autophagy page. My purpose was to establish a link between "Autophagy" and "Negative regulator" pages. If you can do it on behalf of me, I will be thankful. Regards,--German creek (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverting just one of multiple vandalism edits

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your anti-vandalism efforts. Just letting you know that on the HTTPS Everywhere page, you reverted just one of two vandalism edits. This is dangerous because it leaves other watchers with the impression that the vandalism has been dealt with and thus evades detection. I've seen such lingering vandalism persist for years. In this case thankfully it was caught by an IP editor. -- intgr [talk] 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Gender and Transgender issues

[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and people associated with the same, all broadly construed, 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 that 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy_Demonstration_Mission

[edit]

I think it's very relevant to point out this test failed to enter the intended orbit. Had there been an actual person in that space suite, they would now be condemned to death. That's kind of a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.26 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The test was successful, and the intent was to gather data and advertise for tesla, not to place a man in heliocentric orbit. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

unexplained content removal

[edit]

Hi dear friend Please help some not registered user tried to remove information from page links etc. If possible can you make this page semi-protected. This page Majid Karimov. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majid_Karimov Thank you very much.Acer Comp (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer Comp (talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Acer Comp (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese Colonial War

[edit]

I did add some specific information about comandos for example, and you've deleted all . I would like to know why , beacause it was correct information . I had some pictures to show more detailed content and you've deleted . I'm expecting your answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filósofo Lusófono (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit I undid was not exactly vandalism but unexplained content removal. There was no reason to delete the image with the disputed areas in green etc. Thank you L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
However, I meant to revert only that edit, and I had not checked your previous edits, as I should have. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

T69 (tank) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Browning

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've repaired that link now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Wiki

[edit]

Hi,

I haven't made any WIKI Changes(Never), I'm concerned someone is using my IP, is there anything I can do? 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:A2 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:A2: I would recommend that you create an account, even if you are not intending to edit any article, because apparently the person using your IP is a vandal, and that could result in your IP getting blocked from editing. Thanks L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Tanzania page change undo

[edit]

Hi, your undoing my change was erroneous as I did include a reference link at the same time I added the information (I assume it was a mistake rather than an intentional "disappearance" of the added information). 2A02:1811:B214:CA00:351:2ED1:7109:201B (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) 2A02:1811:B214:CA00:351:2ED1:7109:201B (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand. The edit I reverted was made by 178.118.147.64, not you, and your edit is still there. Thank you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes 2 RFA

[edit]

In this edit you moved my comment to the talk page. My fundamental point was one of a very relevant fact to the RfA; in all the examples cited the view of the community lined up with the view of the applicant. It was not a continuation of an argument with the OP. This fact should be on the page for others to review, not buried in the talk page or require them to follow all the links themselves. Please reinstate it or otherwise put that information on the page.

On what basis are you deciding which posts should be removed to the talk page? Are you following some guideline, or is this jsut based on your own personal feelings on the matter? SpinningSpark 18:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That discussion was clogging up the RfA page and, besides, TonyBallioni had done the same for the first oppose. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't care about how much other discussion was, or was not, "clogging up" the page. I am only talking about my post which was making a relevant point. Please restore it. SpinningSpark 18:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't move just your comment: I moved the whole discussion and your comment is sill visible on the talk page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
But you didn't move the whole discussion, the OP's comment is still there and unchallenged. Sorry, I think my point should be visible on-page and am going to put it back. SpinningSpark 19:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not "unchallenged": there's a message that says "discussion moved to talk page", and anyway, with your comment of not, his oppose vote will be counted as an oppose vote during the final count. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I know how counting works. The issue is that other participants could be influenced by this oppose. If they don't follow the links, they could run away with the impression that Lourde's is commonly "against the stream" at AfD which is objectively untrue based on the evidence presented. SpinningSpark 19:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. Anyway, its not my RfA so if you think there should be 30-line-long arguments boing back and forth on a RfA vote, then go ahead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
You just carry on talking to your strawman and covering your ears to what I actually said. SpinningSpark 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see. Your idea was actually to put just your comment and leave the others on the talk page. I would not have done that because then there may be two parallel discussions going on at the same time but I understand your point. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Revolutionary Left (Spain)

[edit]

Thanks for finding that existing article. I had searched but found another article with the same name about an older defunct group. I took your advice and updated the article you gave me the link for. Vahvistus (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Great work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 08:55:51, 23 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Goldentp

[edit]


Thank you for sharing your precious time to review the Draft, Naver_Academic. As the next step, I am trying to add more reliable sources as references by following your guide. The previous draft has three different sources, newspapers in Korean, a journal article in English, and a blog post published by Naver Academic in English. If you tell me which part of the references are not adequate as the reliable references, it will be greatly helpful for me to enhance this article.

Goldentp (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Goldentp: Well, first of all, references in Korean are good, but not really reliable because most of our readers can't read Korean. Also, most of the time, blogs and other self-published sources are not considered to be reliable. For more information, you can read WP:RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely not correct that sources in Korean are "not really reliable because most of our readers can't read Korean". English sources are preferred if they exist and are of equal quality, but our core content policies, WP:V and WP:N, explicitly state that foreign-language sources are valid. This is the same situation as on offline or paywalled English language source that you can't read. You must WP:AGF it. And if you are unable to do that, then find someone who can read it. We can nearly always find an editor on Wikipedia with the necessary access or language skills. I haven't looked at what you are doing at AFC, but if you are rejecting articles because you can't read the sources that would be very bad. SpinningSpark 14:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have read WP:NOENG. Korean sources may be valid, but I'm sorry to say that do not speak Korean. Besides, WP:V says that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable": what kind of verifiability is that, if only less than 1 percent of readers can read the sources? WP:AGF is good, but there need to be some sort of verifiability too, and I don't want to accused of accepting a draft with refs that are rubbish. Next time, Ill just skip to the next draft when I see non-English sources in it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, in case you are wondering, this was the first (and last) time that I declined a draft for being referenced with non-English refs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: Thank you for your detailed explanation. I assumed that it is not so hard to translate those sources in other languages because there is Google Translate. Anyway, I will spend more time to enhance the article with considering your comments. Goldentp (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2018
@Goldenpt: Well, the references can be translated, but there are also very strict rules determining if references are reliable: for example, self-published sources, blogs, social media, shopping websites, and that kind of stuff are not considered reliable. So even with Google translate, it can be hard to verify the quality of these sources. However, WP:NOENG still says that non-English sources are valid, so you can keep them and add new English ones. Also, you are the most polite page talker I have ever seen, congratulations. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

add section to article

[edit]

add section to article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlman99 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Concern about AFC

[edit]

Hey could you explain why QASource was accepted? None of those sources cover this company in-depth and definitely don't have editorial oversight. The article is quite literally blatant spam. I'm also concerned about the acceptance of America Suresh as well. The sources were almost entirely unreliable, cruft, blatant spam or youtube. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying it is "blatant spam"? L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your question is a little concerning as well. I'd strongly recommend reading WP:ARTSPAM and this enlightening piece before accepting anything else. QASource does not have a single usable source that would even remotely establish notability. But more concerning is that out of the last 10 or so AfC accepts you've done:

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess Ill stop reviewing AfCs for some time then. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nathaniel Brazill

[edit]

I fixed a misspelling to make the article self-consistent, at least read things before you revert them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.38.102 (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you were right and I humbly apologize. Sorry. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Chin up

[edit]

You seem to be a bit down. You've gotten really involved over the past few months which is good, but you seem to be rushing into the maintenance side of things. Focus on content work for a bit after you get back from your break. It is often easier to edit existing content than create new content, and you learn more of the way we do things around here that way anyway. If you are at all interested in historical Catholicism articles, we have a bunch of articles from the early years of Wikipedia that need cleanup (and I'm finishing a good topic series on the 17th century conclaves that I could use some help on (I also have other articles in that field I can point out). If you prefer military history, try your hand at WP:MILHIST. They have great resources there to help you learn about how Wikipedia works. Also, always feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. We all make mistakes (and I've made legion, and when you are an admin, people point them out to you in amazingly clear detail. Anyway, enjoy your break, and I do hope to see you before February 30... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree with Tony's comment here. Not on his comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabi Holdings Inc., which was really severe, wow. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

K. Karunakaran Ministry

[edit]

There were two pages by similar names with the same content. I tried to redirect it and something went wrong. The page that has been linked to the previous ministries is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_K._Karunakaran_Ministry. Therefore this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_K.Karunakaran_Ministry) is unnecessary. Sorry about the inconvenience. Please sort this out if possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInnocentBystander (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has been resolved. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:L293D/Archives/2018-2&oldid=1048385379"