User talk:Raryel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Howdy, Raryel, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions; you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles, see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions, go to Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ; if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.


Additional tips[edit]

Here are some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

Be bold[edit]

Be bold in updating pages! You can find instantaneous help any time simply by typing {{help}} anywhere on your own user or user talk page.
You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round. Smile icon.png

 Joe  I 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Raryel, 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:

I noticed your interest in aircraft-related articles. There is a group of editors here at Wikipedia who have come together to form WikiProject Aircraft in order to improve aircraft-related articles. You are invited to check us out and, if interested, join our team. Our project page has a lot of resources as well as article guidelines that you might find helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - BillCJ 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:CITE for the proper methods available to cite sources. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request[edit]

If you're getting vandalism warnings on your IP's talk page, I wouldn't worry too much about them. That just means the address is shared or was used by someone else to vandalize in the past. For simple vandalism, we almost never set a block on an IP address that prohibits registered users from editing, so you'll be able to edit with this account even if the IP is blocked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No ron... You misunderstand my goal[edit]

The point of my reversion back was to get the deletion request box back. Practically none of the article, including what you retained, was anything but speculation. I realize my caption was faulty-- I meant to say reverted to retain the deletion of the article. The page as a whole is useless and any info there that is actually correct is actually on the R160A/B pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.252.171.0 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

railfan window[edit]

I've declined to delete the article, because if it is used by railbuffs it might be notable--and it was written by a well established WPedior on the subject, whom you didn't notify. (You aren't required to, but it would have been an appropriate courtesy in my opinion. I've put a "unsourced' and a "notability" tag on it, in the hope it will get references. -- just incidentally, you accidentally placed the speedy tag on the talk page, not the article page. Best wishes-- DGG 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD Nominations[edit]

I have fixed your AFD nomination for Railfan window. Please read the nomination instructions and next time follow them exactly. You did not subst the template in step one. In step two, you added your nomination to the wrong page[1][2]. In step 3, you used the wrong page name[3]. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...[edit]

Outside national anthems, it is not Wikipedia policy to copy songs word for word. Not even if they're in the public domain and the most popular song ever, never mind if they are unverifiable whose lyrics exist nowhere but on one site and on Wikipedia mirrors. All claims have to be verified. It's no use saying that it's notable because of personal experience; it has to be backed up with a neutral, respectable source for proof. Take the 1947-48 Palestinian Civil War article that I am writing, or the one about Human Rights in Bangladesh. Every claim that could be questioned had to be backed up. That is official policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Incidentally, I do wish that you would stop with the on-the-side attempts to tarnish my reputation. It is unbecoming and rather insensitive, and sniffing around for dirt on me isn't exactly model Wikipedian behaviour. I have never had a conflict with a Wikipedian administrator: every contact that I have had with them has been amicable, and I can think of only one 'debate', about Charles Matthews' comments on unilateralism, and that was a friendly exchange of views in which I was entitled to participate. As for 'frequent' clashes with other Wikipedian users, well, that's another mudslung accusation. I often welcome new users; I have adopted new users to ensure that they learn the ways of Wikipedia; and, with very few exceptions, my correspondance with others, even with vandals, has been amicable. The only people to whom I take exception are those who attack me (million dollars guy), revert good faith edits, or start vanity articles and keep on removing AFD notices. Are you saying that that's excusable and that I should let this kind of thing happen? Clashes with these people are few and far between, at any rate, so much so that the last conflict other than the one that you created by calling me a vandal was back in December 2005, with a vanity editor who kept on removing AFD notices. Over 99% of the time, I work in harmony, and 99.99% of the time with people who play by the rules, which is more than can be said for most. Thus, I would that you would retract your troubling and fallacious comments about my being frequently in conflict, a statement that is a stain on my personality and patently false.

Best wishes, --It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your defensive reply proved my points. 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel
You stated that I was in constant conflict with other users. That is not true, and my sticking up for myself proves nothing but my loathing of being mislabeled. The only way that such a spurious claim can be substantiated is to show that I am in constant conflict, which is impossible, because I'm not. I barely have one conflict per year, never mind constantly, and all of them are caused by people who think that they know better than official Wikipedia rules. I consider such a mislabelling to be a denigrating ad hominem attack and strongly suggest that you retract it, otherwise I will have no further option than to take your comments as harrassment into the administrative process. I am thoroughly upset about how you continue to lie about me and belittle me. It is unpleasant to say the least.
--It's-is-not-a-genitive

Hi Prodego; Edit reverted on B2 article[edit]

Prodego, I would appreciate your researching a subject first before removing material. It's helpful to avoiding acts of vandalism.

00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

What exactly do you have a problem with in my edit? My edit made two changes, one, it fixed a coding error you introduced in this edit, and two, it removed information that was uncited (in the case of the F117 info), and that had nothing to do with the B2, beyond a minor trivia like relationship (Pyotr Ufimtsev). I do not see how either of these changes constitutes vandalism. Please explain, Prodego talk 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have been clearer, what does Pyotr Ufimtsev's having worked for Northrop have to do with the B-2? Prodego talk 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Vandalism[edit]

Not sure what you mean? this is fan production - it is not notable that it requires it's own section. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts[edit]

Please sign your posts by using --~~~~ or by clicking on the signature button (tenth from the left on the toolbar). --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Dicussion[edit]

Please comment here, if you think you can provide a policy based reason why a fan production should be given such a promiment mention in the Star Trek article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You have breached 3rr and will be blocked if you persist[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Star Trek. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Raryel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

You continued to replace content that was removed by multiple editors. The block is entirely justified — Kevin (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Sory but "nultiple" is a stretch of two, and I restored vandalized content.

OK, well, I will file a notice of Administrator Abuse. Granted, I do not expect a satisfavtory resolution the first time. But if seicer does it to more persons, eventually the other administrators will get the drift.03:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

I was not engaged in an edit war; merely restoring vandalised content. Of the twoor three individuals who arbitrarily removed content, only one offered an intelligent suggestion/counterproposal regarding where the content should go. The other two merely reverted content. They could easily have created a new header, or moved it to a new section. They chose, insteadm, to destroy content justrifyimng it purely through personal preference.

I've edited a number of articles on Wikipedia, and have been careful to follow a couple of rules perhaps not explicit in wikipedia:

1) I do not merely remove content; I almost always leave previous content alone, either moving it to another section or adding detail to it. On occasion I replace it with newer stuff (example: Boeing will roll out the new airplanre tomorrow; I change it to: Boeing rolled out the new airplane today.

2) If there are opposing views on a subject, I've added text to the effect of View A says High and View B says Low and so forth.

You have two users who did not hesitate to vandalize content that did not suit them. I treated them with far more respect than they offered me. Perhaps they need a "time out." 01:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

I have reviewed the history of this. Yes, of course, Raryel was edit warring. However, he was not warned until 14:59, 24 June 2008[4], and his last revert was at 15:00, 24 June 2008.[5]. He was actually blocked at 15:02, 24 June 2008[6]. Would he have continued to revert? Depends on whether he noticed the Talk page message. But warning was clearly inadequate. It looks to me like he was restoring the removal of sourced content and was being tag-teamed. (This, however, is a snap judgment. He shouldn't have been edit warring, whether what was being done by others was improper or not.) Discussion, however, was on-going. Killerofcruft requested discussion at 14:58, one minute before warning and simultaneously filing a 3RR report.[7]. One minute is not enough time to respond to a warning, and blocking is not supposed to be punitive, i.e., it should be used to stop problem behavior that continues after warning.--Abd (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I missed something in my review. The 3RR report was moot. The admin blocked before it was filed, and my description of the 3RR filing timing may have been off, partly because I'd assumed, from a first reading, that the block was after the report was filed. The block remains improper, in my opinion; the user was not warned, and was likely, in good faith, attempting to restore what he saw as proper, sourced content, in the face of what, again, looked to him like vandalism. Warnings are important! --Abd (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Raryel, at this point I suggest that you politely note, on the blocking admin's Talk page, that you did not realize you were violating policy, if that is true. Ask the admin -- don't demand -- to annotate the block log to show that you had not been properly warned before the block. Usually this will resolve the issue, most administrators are reasonable. If not, let me know on my Talk page and I'll assist you. (It can be important because once you have been blocked for edit warring, it will later tend to be assumed that you did it in spite of warning, and then a subsequent block, should it happen, could be for longer. You won't have any more problems, of course, because you'll be careful, but still. Shit happens.) --Abd (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Of Gods and Men...[edit]

...is not the only independent film. Including just that entry in the Star Trek article gives the project undue weight. It is simply a misnomer to include it in the Feature films section. I agree that fan productions should be mentioned more prominently in the Star Trek article, and I'll do that while you enjoy your block. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

again about signing posts[edit]

Hi - you still seem to be writing in your signature rather than using the time and date-stamping tools. could you use the tool as it links your edits to your talkpage. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

O just SHIFT + ~ four times to gain the same effect. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See if this helps, the standard wikipedia message about this says:


Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!


hope that helps. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifying Bioterrorism[edit]

I am sorry to inform you. References must be linked to an article which verifies the information (WP:V), general links to the CDC or other sources on related topics do not sufficiently accomplish this goal. The references must be specific, sometimes to the point where you may take a direct quotation from the source provided in order to verify the information within the article. The "External links" is what's used to expand the reader's knowledge or provide information similar to that provided in the article within Wikipedia (WP:EL). I have removed those links which do not lead to specific articles in this diff.[8] My recommendation is to re-add those links in the related articles (e.g. the Ricin article), the External links in Bioterrorism is sufficient. You're edit was in good faith, thank you, but you need to understand how articles are constructed in order to improve them. Wikipedia is no longer so simple as it was six years ago.[9][10] [11] If you have any questions. Ask. Below is a welcome template with a list of useful links. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of links to bioterrorism article were inappropriate. Each bioagent was part of a list with details, and while you are correct in that references should support the article, you are mistaken in that references which support the listed topic are not appropriate. They are appropriate. However, I am not done adding references. A more constructive use of your time would be to help me improve the references, and not merely delete material. I realize that takes time and effort, but that's why we're both here, isn't it? Raryel (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was working on the references right before you made your edit [12]. References verify the article, and your assertion that simply linking to the CDC accomplishes this goal is mistaken. The CDC provides reports[13] within those links, and the references here needs to point to them. Adding links to general portions of the CDC's website looks more like an advertisement than something appropriate. I'll leave them in, but you need to correct them later on. I'll work with you. When you get to the reports, be sure to format those references appropriately, you can do so by using the {{Citation}} templates. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Advertisement for the government? OK, fine. If you look at the latest version of the article, you'll see I've added additional specific references and added some text as well (regarding pneumonic plague). You're welcome to add to them, and I'm very appreciative of your collaboration.Raryel (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Publishers add books to the "Further reading", advocacy groups add and remove their websites from the External links—References looks like a new vector. Especially since WP:MEDMOS, the manual of style for medical articles, are beginning to depreciate the "External links" and "See also" sections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Raryel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

James C. Marsters[edit]

Thanks for adding to the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf article. I realized when I saw the obituary that he needed an article. There's lots more about the device itself in the other article, obviously, but you seem to have some knowledge that would be useful for the article I began.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd hardly call it marvelous, but thanks. I have the time now to add to the article using one of your sources.

I don't know if I can find the Wall Street Journal article, though. Maybe the real one, if I can remember. But I don't think it's free online, and there's no link.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that Robert Weitbrecht invented the acoustic coupler. None of these obituaries say that he did. Where did YOU get this, because it may have to be corrected. The Wikipedia article on the device says nothing about where it came from.

By the way, I'm a fan of a TV show on which actor James Marsters is a favorite of many message board posters that I communicate with. Ironically, I don't even like the man. It's just that I saw the name in my newspaper.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the Weitbrecht problem appears to have been solved. While numerous sources that come up in a Google search, say Weitbrecht invented it, an official looking paper says the device existed before but Weitbrecht refined it.

The man deserves a better article!Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Ertle Oliver[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nike on display[edit]

Hi Raryel, You added some text on the Nike Hercules about a Nike on display. I believe this should not be here. A better place to add the text is Project_Nike lemma. Hope you will move the text --80.100.210.244 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I will defer to you. If you would like to move it (there is a link to the lemma from the Nike Hercyules page, right?) and arrange it nicely there, that would be fine.Raryel (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK i moved the text. Have a nice day.--80.100.210.244 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare[edit]

Raryal, will you please stop adding material about these non-existent "new" discoveries. This whole story is just regurgitating material that has been known for decades. These researchers have discovered nothing whatever that wasn't published by Schoenbaum back in 1970, and which dates back even further. The "grain sack" nonsense about the Stratford bust is simply false. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not "disrespectful" to remove material. It's normal practice, as you should know by now. I explained very clearly what is false and what is not on the talk page of the Shakespeare's life article, and here. Indeed I am under no obligation to inform you personally of deletions; that I did so is a courtesy. That I moved your comments and provided a discussion of them is so too. Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Even if they had been factually correct, your edits flouted WP:MOS. They clearly contravene WP:LEDE. You do not plonk content in the lede that is not referred to in the main text. The main Shakespeare article is featured, which means we only use high-quality sources. AP reports do not fit the bill. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Axtually, my edits do not flout either convention. There is nothing in Wikipedia to prohibit the citation of Associated Press stories and nothing except your personal opinion that the citation isn't high quality. I looked at your explanations on the Talk page of Shakespeare. You cited no references. The implication is that you consider yourself a sufficiently authoritative source on Shakespeare that you need not cite anyone but yourself when removing material. I think that flouts Wikipedia's policies. Raryel (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You could bother to read WP:LEDE before spouting rubbish. Yes, you did break that rule. Read it. I quote "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Regarding AP, there is no prohibition on AP reports, which may indeed be acceptable for some topics, but certainly not for historical scholarship. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There is no rule that says sources have to be cited to delete material. And by the way, you could make the effort to research the matter yourself. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I did read it. You are the one who spouts rubbish. You have decided that you alone know who is reliable and who isn't and what is a fact regarding Shakespeare and what isn't. Instead of displaying your own childish nonsense, you could have cited a specific reference providing information that disputes the issue of Shakespeare's behavior as a merchant. Are you in fact able to do that? Do you really know as much about Shakespeare as you think you do? How do we know you're not an obstacle to a better Wikipedia article about Shakespeare? Raryel (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I came here to suggest he add the material to the article, except that it be based on and cited from reliable Shakespeare sources, such as Schoenbaum, Potter, Bate, et al, the more recent the better. We could always use a few extra hands as long as the additions improve the articles and comply with policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is that some extremists decided they alone were the arbiters of what is acceptable for scholarship. Compliance with Wikipedia standards isn't the problem; it's the approach to Shakespeare as a religion that's the problem.Raryel (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you have seen fit to add this absurd remark a year later, I may as well reply. As I said, this is well known material that can be cited to reliable scholarly sources. It is well-established in all Shakespeare biographies, so there is no "extremism" except from you. What is false is the claim that a new discovery has been made, and the adding of nonsensical stuff about the non-existent grain sack in the memorial, which was simply an error in the AP report due to a misunderstanding of what the scholar said, as she has since clarified. I gave you several reliable sources on the page, which you have failed to follow up on. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have it backwards. The only person I see claiming to be the sole arbiter of what is reliable research is you, not me. I'm comfortable with debate about what Shakespeare was like or what he did in his lifetime, but you're not. I think that reflects poorly on you, but that's your problem, not mine. I read your references. To me they are not completely persuasive. But since you think you're the world's expert on Shakespeare, the only thing that matters is what persuades you.Raryel (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to EMD AEM-7 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

Hey, you may have noticed that a few of my recent edits to West Haven have involved converting unformatted citations into cite web and cite news templates. I would be appreciative if you'd use these in future edits. They maintain a consistent style, automatically create professional formatting, and enable the addition of things like archive links for dead URLs more easily. Additionally, they create COinS data which makes the article able to be processed by certain library software and screen readers for blind people.

If you have any questions on how to use them, I'm glad to help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I didn't realize they were unformatted, since Wikipedia generated the citation numbers and did not indicate any errors. But I'm always happy to get help and I certainly want readers who are blind to be able to read the content.12.231.144.154 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pennsauken Transit Center (NJT station) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 20131008_Pennsauken_station_linking_trains_to_open_next_week.html#bwJEORvcS7d6B2Gj.99 ]<ref>[http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/njt-advances-pennsauken-transit-center-project-3312.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Webb Space Telescope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redondo Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lockheed P-3 Orion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blue Line (MBTA) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Square Under, renamed October 28, 1963. Will close March 2014 - Spring 2016 for major construction (upgrade to [[Americans With Disabilities Act]] compliance<ref>{{cite web|title=Government Center

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Emirates A350 order cancellation[edit]

Emirates order cancellation of 70 A350s involved only -900s and -1000s. But you added that text twice in the -800 section of the A50 article, where it has not clear relevance to me. Can you explain what I am missing here? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boeing 747 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • two aircraft are undergoing modification to comply with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast]] ADS-B standards and [[Identification Friend or Foe]] Mode 5.<ref>Butler, Amy and Guy Norris,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to East Side Access may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 50th Street, created along with the ventilation facility; the latter is not yet operational.<ref>{{cite web|title=50th Street Commons Pocket Park Opens as Part of East Side Access|url=http://www.mta.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vostok 1 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Vostok's chief designer, [[Oleg Ivanovsky]], personally helped rebolt the hatch.<ref>Obituary, [[Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 29, 2014, p.11-</ref> There is some disagreement

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boeing 747-400 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • engine widebody aircraft operating from an expanded hub at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport]].<ref>Schofield, Adriean, et al, Jumbos bow out, Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 15,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)