|2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015|
|Edit this box|
You've got mail!
Re: your edit, you stated that no edit summary isn't a reason to revert - yet if you look around the project you'll see that it actually is, quite often and regularly. With this particular editor, you'll note that multiple editors have reverted him for this very reason and he has been warned about it repeatedly. You also said check the article - that is what the editor should have done. It's not my job (or anyone else's) to vet this editors contributions by checking source articles, providing reliable sources when needed and supplying edit summaries to explain his edits. This is just enabling him, not helping him. Have at look at the histories... - theWOLFchild 03:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, welcome back after the block! As you can see, I'm no newbie, but the only two instances I've seen of reverting "just because they didn't put an edit summary in" have been yours. It completely goes against the very idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we have a duty as editors to check if the edit stacks up before reverting. Why? Because, as in this instance, they might be right, and you might be wrong. You've recently been warned about your behaviour here, so if this is what you've been waiting to say, I suggest you either learn the lesson, or move on. ‑‑YodinT 19:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
TWL Questia check-in
- Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
- When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
|... you were recipient
no. 570 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fear the Walking Dead: Flight 462, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Walking Dead (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.
Strange stories about Strange Stories
Thanks for your work to straighten out Strange stories from a Chinese Room! I apologize if I made things worse by trying to handle it myself before I realized that I was in over my head. I got lost in the Redirects and double Redirects, but I think it's ok now (including the links to the Chinese, Norwegian, and other Wikipedias that were lost when the article was frivolously renamed). Userfahne Contributions] shows that he has not quit his other contributions, which stretch the boundaries of AGF. Cheers!ch (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's ok CWH, glad you stepped in, and thanks for all of your other editing! Also good to see from his talk page that lots of admins are now aware of what he's doing (not to mention he seems to have given up at least on the Strange renamings for now – hope I don't jinx it!). And it does somehow feel like it could be the prelude to some modern cyber-horror story! :) ‑‑YodinT 22:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)