Are you here because your article was speedily deleted? Click here before leaving any message.
|Welcome to my talk page.
|Userpage||Talk to me||Contribute||Work||Images||Tools||DYK||Ireland Project||Philately Portal||Philately Project|
|This user is a member of WikiProject Philately, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the science of philately. Please feel free to join us.|
|This user is a member of the Motorcycling WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. Please feel free to join us.|
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10
11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28
|S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897||Review it now|
|Manila Metro Rail Transit System||Review it now|
|Ireland articles by quality and importance|
|WikiWork factors (?)||ω =170,511||Ω = 5.37|
|13 August 2014|
|Picture of the day|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion.
Reference Errors on 7 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Notaphily: Template:Refimprove vs. many Template:Citation needed instances
I was thinking about replacing all the CNs with one Refimprove, but I saw on the page's history that you reverted an edit that took out all the CNs without using the page-wide Refimprove. I have real-life limitations and you are very active especially in this area, so I thought I'd point this out to you and leave it to you to decide what to do.
Having many CNs make it difficult, especially for people with certain disabilities but even just for some busy people, to read the entire article. I understand that many CNs can point out all the items that need refs, but I really think it also gets in the way of even starting to add refs because of how overwhelming it is.
I do agree that that IP user's edits needed reversal, but only because he didn't compensate with No Refs or Refimprove. Or how about this (new ideas as I post!): make a structured list of what points need citations and put it on Talk:Notaphily? Or even link back to an earlier version on the talk page? We need to balance out accessibility with provability.
If you want me to see your response, please add User:Geekdiva to it so it will show up in my notifications (which I discovered by accident but it works well), and I'll make a good effort to get back here. But because of my limitations, I'm going to leave Notaphily alone since I used up my energy here. :)
Ps. I also liked the way you didn't respond in your edit summary to the insults in the IP user's summary. Heh! Best possible response.
To clarify, I think that CNs (which I use often) are best suited after the article is mostly referenced well. It serves as a "Ya missed this one!" pointer.
- @Geekdiva: While I can't agree with all your views, this article has no references, so the most appropriate tag is one simple "unreferenced" tag: there are no references to improve on. So many cns are just not worth it, and certainly detract vistually but they have their place but maybe not only when an article is reasonably well referenced. I also use "unreferenced section" tags where necessary. The article could possibly also do with an "attention needed=yes" within the project banners on the talk page if that field is supported, though whether anyone follows up on those I really don't know. I have this on my watchlist but have little interest or knowledge in the topic itself. Thanks for your interest and compliments. ww2censor (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You asked me to inform you whenever I nominate a stamp for deletion. I have listed five images for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 20#Witold Kieżun, and one of the five images is a stamp. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)