Hello, I'm Darkwind. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Himanshu, with , without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Darkwind (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The edit summary is just as important (arguably, more important) than a note on the talk page. When editors like myself are monitoring recent changes to Wikipedia, someone blanking a page and not explaining anything in the edit summary looks an awful lot like either vandalism or a new editor making a mistake, because we can't easily see the talk page while using anti-vandalism tools. This notion is further reinforced when the editor in question has no talk page (like you didn't until I posted the message above), meaning they're very likely to be new, as they have not been welcomed and nobody has said anything to them yet. That's why I posted the message I did, because it looked like you were a new editor, and you removed content without any explanation that could be seen from the recent changes page.
- Furthermore, blanking a page is not the right way to get rid of something you see to be problematic. Instead, Wikipedia has a deletion policy that you would need to follow to have something like a redirect, article, or category removed. This is in place largely because Wikipedia functions on the basis of consensus, community agreement on what should be done. In this case, the proper forum for discussion is RfD, "redirects for discussion". If you think that redirect should be deleted, please feel free to follow the instructions on that page, but please don't just "blank" the redirect page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florrie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (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.
Hello, I saw your post on Talk:Trustpilot. I am interested in keeping Trustpilot's article encyclopedic, which means not allowing Trustpilot to degenerate it into a free advertisement but also not allowing haters to turn it into a bashing page. Any assistance that you can provide shall be appreciated.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VHX, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OVP and SVOD (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.