User talk:123dylan456

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, 123dylan456, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} is there any way I can go up levels (if this is the right term for it) so that i can do more for wikipedia, and edit locked/semi-locked pages ? thanks. 123dylan456 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You can edit semi-protected articles after you have been registered user for 4 days and have done 10 edits. Ilyushka88 talk 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more information about what actions can be done at different user access levels at Wikipedia:User access levels. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for the help :D 123dylan456 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts

Further to your query at Talk:Bear dog: You can sign your posts either by typing ~~~~, or by clicking the button that looks like a blue pencil at the top of the editing box. Anaxial (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big help, thanks. I always had to copy and paste other peoples signature things and put in my own information it was stressful lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.100.169 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Knocklyon, Dublin: Why were almost all of my my edits undone/changed in some way?

Please see article history to see exactly what I added. I listed out the different retailers that were part of the Knocklyon Shopping Centre, and I added links to some of these retailers websites in the External Links section. The person who changed my edits wrote "Article improving but cut back excessive, and potentially commercial, business listing, and removed inappropriate links - more could be done". I dont see at all how it was commercial business listing as all I did was list the shops that were in Knocklyon so as to make it a more detailed article - I did not put up a banner telling all who read it to go and spend their money in these shops. I also do not see how my links in External Links were "inappropriate" because there were already links there to clubs and other organisations websites based in Knocklyon so why not add links to shops websites based here too ? 123dylan456 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and great to have active editing. There were at least three issues, however:

1) it is not encyclopedic to list lots of different shops - the article, *after* my edits, still contains too much such detail. Rather than key points of the district, an area can end up weighted with lists of businesses (test this point by thinking what an article on Blanchardstown, Tallaght or Swords could be like). Which leads to an important sub-point - businesses come and go, and if there are two cafes today, there could be none tomorrow.
2) with limited exceptions for major presences, or famous stores, we do not name individual businesses - first, this could be seen as commercial, and secondly, specific businesses can be even more transient than store types.
3) on links, the policy is simple (see WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL) - few, of merit and of general relevance. Again, even after my edits, the article has too many. For all the reasons above, business links are almost never appropriate - what is ideal is a community website, local history page, something from the local authority, and maybe some appropriate local organisations (a Chamber of Commerce / Business Association would be fine).

I can recommend articles such as Rathfarnham, Raheny and Howth for different, but in their own way balanced, approaches (Howth could use more depth). A good test is to ask, if you just came across the article while browsing the Dublin area in Wikipedia, what would be an interesting overview - would you really care if there is a Cafe, still less its name? In the meantime, I suspect other editors will further trim the section about businesses, and the links, but I will step away. SeoR (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.178.29.140 (talk) [reply]

The Hunger Games (film)

What you wrote about the reviews is clearly not true if you look at the source. Six critics including two "top" critics. BollyJeff || talk 15:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you reword this page to a decent page — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dylan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the other killers

Since there is one image of Stu Macher and Billy Loomis the original Ghostface killers, could you add in three more images of the other Ghostface killers please?

1. [Loomis] and [Altieri], the second Ghostface killers.

2. [Bridger], the third and final Ghostface killer.

3. [Roberts] and [Walker], the fourth and new Ghostface killers. 31.48.57.250 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]