User talk:Vincent60030/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Vincent60030. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citation Avoiding stairs Tube Guide (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Citation Avoiding stairs Tube Guide and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Vincent60030, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citation Avoiding stairs Tube Guide has been accepted

Citation Avoiding stairs Tube Guide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(t) Josve05a (c) 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vincent60030. You have new messages at Talk:Bounds Green tube station.
Message added 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBaK (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Map on Brixton tube station page

The reason I moved the 'Location' section along with the map you inserted is that the map won't fit in the section where the infobox is. It is too wide, so it automatically gets pushed down to below the infobox leaving a massive area of white space above it and below the text in the 'Location' section. Have you looked at the page after editing it to see what I'm talking about? It shouldn't stay like that because it looks wrong. Compare it with other pages and you will not see space like that. The text should flow continuosly down the page with no gaps. That was why I moved the whole thing down the page to a place where the embedded map fits better. I don't see any reason why the 'Location' section shouldn't go there. As far as I can see there is no standard template for sections and their ordering on tube station pages. For instance, the Stockwell tube station page doesn't even have a 'Location' section. Dubmill (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm fine with it then. :)Vincent60030 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination for London congestion charge

Hi, I notice that you've nominated London congestion charge for good article status. Are you ready to deal with any issues raised by the reviewer? This is likely to involve getting the article up to date. For example, on a quick scan over it, the revenue and expenditure tables in the Income and costs section appear to need data for recent years.--DavidCane (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the check link tool in the Good Article Tools (see box on right) shows a number of the external links are dead - these will need fixing.--DavidCane (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, I will take a look at it when I have time.Vincent60030 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acton Town tube station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edgware Road tube station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good article noms

Please don't make edits to bot-updated pages, as you did here. It's pointless, because the bot will ignore your edit and rebuild the page from its own information, as it did with the next edit. The "Reviews" figure is nothing to do with the named GAN, but the number of other GA reviews initiated by the nominator - notice that in the Computing and engineering group immediately above, all three of those nominated by SpinningSpark show "(Reviews: 23)". So, for the case in question, the figure of 1 is correct, because you started this review but have conducted no others so far as I can tell. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. :)Vincent60030 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)