User talk:Lieutenant Ramathorn

March 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Progress Island U.S.A., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. $Abhijay$ ^{What did I do this time?} 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:New_York_1986_License_Plate.jpg[edit]

I apologize for altering your image. I will not change it again. –BuickCentury Driver 02:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Do not "fix" correct spelling as you did in Automotive lighting. Please read and understand WP:ENGVAR, the policy on how the English-language Wikipedia deals with the different varieties of English spelling and usage. Thank you for contributing coöperatively to Wikipedia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lieutenant Ramathorn. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 10:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries[edit]

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. — 220 of ^Borg 10:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent PRODs[edit]

Hi Lt. Ramathorn,

The PROD tag is supposed to be for "uncontroversial deletions", not for a mass group of articles. Please undo your taggings and take the articles to a mass AFD. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 20:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mass nominations of Church articles for deletion. Thank you. Ryan Vesey 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave you this note based on the discussion. Your additions of PROD tags were reverted. Due to inherent problems with mass deletion campaigns (the good gets picked up in the bad, if the bad does in fact exist), it is better to be much more specific on exactly which of those articles you truly think are not notable. Some of the articles you tagged were on the National Register of Historic Places, those are obviously notable. If you feel strongly that some of the articles you have tagged are truly not notable, note that you can no longer use the PROD method. Instead, you must take them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you plan on doing that I suggest that you read the process labelled at WP:BEFORE. Then read the next section that gives instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. If you would like to nominate a batch, see WP:BUNDLE. Note that you should not bundle articles of very different quality or content. In addition, I highly suggest that you seek advice from another editor before nominating any of these articles so you have an idea of whether it would be appropriate. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Ryan Vesey 22:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please read the discussion at the section link I gave you. Some rationale is given there for why mass deletion nominations are a bad idea. Ryan Vesey 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is whatever we want it to be (withint reason). As long as articles are supported by WP:RS they shouldn't be a problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lieutenant Ramathorn, sorry if this sounds like a pile on, but one rather important part of the process got left out of these prods, as you didn't inform the authors of the articles. Since the prods have been reverted that oversight was fortuitous, but I'd suggest that in future you inform article creators and substantial contributors when you prod their work for deletion. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating has details including a handy template. You don't need to inform long departed editors, but the first one I checked was editing earlier this month. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Epicgenius. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to National September 11 Memorial & Museum because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not perform page-move vandalism, such as when you recently moved the National September 11 Memorial & Museum article to National September 11 Gift Shop, Memorial & Museum Inc.. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]