User talk:RileyBugz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Dave Mustaine: new section
Line 73: Line 73:


:Ok! I reverted your edits because they were unsourced. Thanks for telling me! Just remember to source your edits. [[User:RileyBugz|RileyBugz]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|Yell at me]]</sup> &#124; <sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|Edits]]</sub> 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
:Ok! I reverted your edits because they were unsourced. Thanks for telling me! Just remember to source your edits. [[User:RileyBugz|RileyBugz]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|Yell at me]]</sup> &#124; <sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|Edits]]</sub> 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

== Dave Mustaine ==

Hi. About this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Mustaine&type=revision&diff=760368534&oldid=760367266], If you didn't notice the whole section is based on Mustaine's interviews, etc. So the YouTube videos are no different. I watched them and I didn't see any reason to revert the changes the IP made. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:35, 16 January 2017

Page delete

I believe my page should not be deleted. Ramoso221 (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I would have advised you to wait a bit before nominating for FAC to have another read through, since the standard is much higher at at FAC. Having said that, it looks pretty good. I suggest that you

  • Check for word repetitions too close together
  • check that technical terms (eg superloral) are linked, explained in parentheses or replaced
  • Check for number agreement and consistency (it/they)
  • Even I, after dozens of noms, sometimes get long lists of what reviewers think I have done incorrectly or omitted. Usually the issues are trivial, so don't worry about that
  • This will be sitting at FAC for some time. While you are waiting, I suggest that you look at the sort of comments made in other candidate FACs
  • The best way to get reviewers for your articles is to comment on other candidates, if you feel confident to do so. That's not so important for a first nom, but obviously if you become a regular, there is an unwritten expectation of quid pro quo

I will, of course, review your article, but it may not be today. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes, please check. Also, I'm not convinced that supercilium is correct link for superloral, the lores are in front of the eye, not above. Either change the link or gloss as "above the base of the bill" or similar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will check it out. Also, I just saw your edits, and I changed back what you changed in the status section. The reason I did that was because the edit resulted in a grammar error and you removed the information on how large its range is, I'm guessing that was an error though. All the other things look fine. Also, I think that I may need a British spell-checker. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Borgia

I have all sources and these were being placed in their site but as I told your friends in wikipedia I´m tired, it is very tired fighting against ignorance. "Stupidity is sign of fool and ignorants" Publio Emilio Maron.

Thanks to you and your friends for damage all my wiki job.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Siredejoinville: Hello! It seems that a good deal of your revisions were sourced, so it seems that I might have done this in error. It seems, although, that you were removing content in the process of adding it. I would recommend that you source your edits a bit more, and make sure to not remove content and establish consensus on the article's talk page for possibly controversial edits. I am sorry for this, but I recommend asking for help from some more experienced editors. Why don't you ask for help with the article here or here. Also, you did seem to be edit warring, so keep a close eye on that. Another option, which I think is the best one, is to forget about that article and edit something else. Also, you should keep this in mind. It really helps me avoid controversy. Thanks for informing me! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

allegation of 'libel' in a revert of two wikilinks

Hi RileyBugz, you prevented an edit of mine, with the summary that said only "Libel" which seems to be an incorrect reason.[1]

  • 18:12, 27 December 2016‎ RileyBugz (-292)‎ . . (Reverted 1 pending edit by 47.222.203.135 to revision 756923159 by User38479: Libel)
  • 18:04, 27 December 2016‎ 47.222.203.135 (+292)‎ . . (→‎See also: quasi-informal economic advisors, and also czars (need to add Icahn over there))

I was attempting to add the following see-also entries, at the bottom of Political_appointments_of_Donald_Trump, to roles not covered in the body-prose:

And I also plan to add this one to the same article-section:

Was your revert a mistake? If not, can you please explain why you think those wikilinks added as see-also-entries, are some form of libel? (See also WP:LIBEL.) There are plenty of good sources which use the phrase 'informal' economic advisors,[2][3] and plenty which use the phrase 'czar' of this-or-that area of policy concern,[4][5][6] specifically when describing Trump's personnel choices. And it is not just Trump, this has been 'standard' terminology since the 1930s or 1940s, in USA politics at least. If you dislike the word 'quasi' which was my own invention, although of course it was only in my edit-summary, I will happily take that part back.  :-) Generally speaking though, if the phrases are part of article-titles (such as List of U.S. executive branch czars in this case) then that is a clue that the term is likely to be neutral, or at least, probably uncontroversial. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Thanks for the notice though! I didn't know that those were real things... RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I make mistakes all the time as well. It's part of wikipedia, there is a lot to learn, and no matter how long you are here, you can never know everything -- but keep on striving for that goal anyways  :-) In the future please do be careful in your edit-summaries, because people *do* read them, and if you say something that later turns out to be incorrect there is no way to get rid of that edit-summary short of calling in the content-assassins. Which is not worth doing here, obviously, they have much bigger fish to fry! Also please be aware that political articles are often extremely sensitive, there are a lot of touchy and difficult topic-areas, and Donald Trump is no exception -- the opposite of an exception, in some ways, he is likely to become the exemplar of touchy subjects. I recommend opening a talkpage conversation (either user-talkpage or article-talkpage) if you are going to revert something that MIGHT be legit, and also recommend being extra-cautious in edit-summaries per pillar four. So instead of 'silently' reverting with an edit-summary that turned out to be mistaken, with a time travel machine you could have said something more cautious/neutral such as 'is the word czar really applicable? if so please discuss at talkpage' or something along those lines. And it also helps to leave a user-talkpage note, for the person you revert, explaining that you reverted them (and why), because getting reverted is rarely any fun. In any case, no harm done, I will restore the wikilinks now (and add the SCOTUS folks while I'm at it), happy editing and thanks for your work on wikipedia, keep on trying hard and soon enough you will be more and more of an expert on all the odd nooks and crannies 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Lapus

Information icon Hello, I'm KoshVorlon. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to John Lapus have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KoshVorlon 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Saw your message. No problem. Stuff happens at times! KoshVorlon 16:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Thanks for reviewing the pipit. I haven't forgotten the swallow, but I'm trying to avoid being the first reviewer since I am a non-trivial contributor. Since you are a new nominator, the edit history will be checked to make sure that you are a contributor (we do get drive-by noms from people who just like the look of an article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protected edit request on 01 January 2017

Please change the following sentence on the page "User:RileyBugz"

  • now: Please, end your posts by singing them. To do so, just add four tildes (~~~~) to your post.
  • new: Please, end your posts by signing them. To do so, just add four tildes (~~~~) to your post.

Typo is against policy, please see WP:NOT#Massively_multi-player_online_opera  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also, you may wish to consider using the Wikipedia:Editnotice#User_and_user_talk trick, so that your message will appear whenever people edit your user-talkpage 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A barnstar for you!

Thank you for your contributions to the mangrove swallow article. It's a FAC, and I just wanted to thank you for helping make it even better. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Riley!
I'm aware of the FAC in progress, and hope to be able to weigh in soon. Great work so far, from what I've seen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Sparks replaced James Marsden

Hal Sparks did replace Jason Marsden in Tak and the Pworr of Juju2605:6001:E790:5800:60CF:F1:23CF:DC8D (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I reverted your edits because they were unsourced. Thanks for telling me! Just remember to source your edits. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mustaine

Hi. About this: [7], If you didn't notice the whole section is based on Mustaine's interviews, etc. So the YouTube videos are no different. I watched them and I didn't see any reason to revert the changes the IP made. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]