Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Siawase (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Siawase (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Doll edits
Re: the see also entries, see the WP:SEEALSO guidelines, in particular: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Also, the Dollfie brand is really no more relevant to the Ball-jointed doll article than any other 1:6 fashion doll (aside from the brand name confusion, which is explained in the prose.) So there's no need to give it weight as if it was.
Re: the link to the Dollfie article, I generally try to keep the number of links in the lead section down to only the most important and weighty things, to not overwhelm readers. The lead tends to be very information dense as is. Also, your edits seem to have a general goal of increasing visibility of the Dollfie brand, something which goes against Wikipedia's policies on Neutral point of view and Promotion. Hope that clears things up. Siawase (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Devil Wears Prada characters
While I have no problem with you restoring those articles so the links lead somewhere, I should warn you that, as bold as doing so was, it still might be interpreted as going against consensus (to the extent that it exists for those articles). I'm not even sure either of them would survive a deletion !vote ... they're just characters in one book and one movie. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Papi (The L Word character) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone spoke with you in detail but I made the page back into a redirect at the AFD. The general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books) (more generally at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)) is that the story itself must have reliable third-party discussions about it. The fact that other short stories exist or that other works of Forsyth exists isn't the issue. Even all of Forsyth's books don't have articles (such as The Biafra Story) so the single short story instead redirects to The Veteran (short story collection), the collection of stories where there are reviews of the entire collection as a whole. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)