User talk:Balablitz/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
FYI
Hi, nice work on the article. I've nominated the article for DYK —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Vensatry: Well, thats awesome.
Great! 
Thank you very much! --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tiruchirappalli Railway Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salem (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Wasson Bluff entry
Thanks for adding "expert-subject" and "lead too long" tags to the article on Wasson Bluff. As suggested, I have moved material from the lead into the body of the entry. I have also removed the "lead too long" tag. As creator of the entry, I will have to wait for review by an expert. Bwark (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Bwark:Good. Keep improving. I have one suggestion regarding the article. Though the article has citations as per guidelines, it seems it is lacking WP:INTEGRITY, as most of the citations are pushed to the end of the paragraph. It is also one of the reason, i tagged for “expert-subject”, some might put “cn” tags in-between paragraphs after the end of sentences having crucial of trivial information. Hence, i suggest you to rework on that, instead of pushing all citations at the end of para, cite at appropriate end of sentences as per WP:BUNDLING. Thank you --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 21:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. I will assess them carefully. However, to be perfectly honest, I feel you are nit-picking. You have not pointed out any specific problems as the tag suggests, i.e. "This article needs attention from an expert in Geology. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article." As far as I am concerned, there is no issue with this article. The citations are publicly available and two geologists who work at this site have reviewed my entry. I am an experienced Wiki editor and contributor with four featured articles to my credit. Experience tells me that contributing to pre-existing articles generates much less criticism than creating new ones. Although I agree with your suggestion re shortening the lead section, I think you are wrong when you impose that tag about the need for expert review without justifying it. The tag suggests the entry may lack factual credibility and it undermines the many weeks of effort I put into it. Experience also tells me that it may take many weeks, if not months, before anyone actually reviews this article and in the meantime, anyone who reads it will doubt its accuracy. Therefore, I would ask you to remove the tag, unless you can justify it and instead, publish your criticisms on the article's talk page Bwark (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Bwark:First of all, thanks for your nice reply. Fine. I realise that. More than any other tag, this tag may create a bigger and longer backlog for a review. My only issue was with citations as they are bundled, though they are credible and inlined. Hence you may work on that and keep improving. Thank you --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Bwark:First of all, thanks for your nice reply. Fine. I realise that. More than any other tag, this tag may create a bigger and longer backlog for a review. My only issue was with citations as they are bundled, though they are credible and inlined. Hence you may work on that and keep improving.
- Thank you for your suggestions. I will assess them carefully. However, to be perfectly honest, I feel you are nit-picking. You have not pointed out any specific problems as the tag suggests, i.e. "This article needs attention from an expert in Geology. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article." As far as I am concerned, there is no issue with this article. The citations are publicly available and two geologists who work at this site have reviewed my entry. I am an experienced Wiki editor and contributor with four featured articles to my credit. Experience tells me that contributing to pre-existing articles generates much less criticism than creating new ones. Although I agree with your suggestion re shortening the lead section, I think you are wrong when you impose that tag about the need for expert review without justifying it. The tag suggests the entry may lack factual credibility and it undermines the many weeks of effort I put into it. Experience also tells me that it may take many weeks, if not months, before anyone actually reviews this article and in the meantime, anyone who reads it will doubt its accuracy. Therefore, I would ask you to remove the tag, unless you can justify it and instead, publish your criticisms on the article's talk page Bwark (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chord Line, Tamil Nadu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Rock (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Japec Jakopin entry
Hi, thank you for your comment on the article, subjected for review: "Non-english text may have corresponding/alternate texts in english. Some reference are not in format." Could you be more specific, maybe add some example, so that I can make the requested changes faster? Thank you in advance. AndyKamy (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- @AndyKamy:The Non-english texts are in Slovene language, right? If so, they may be brought within quotes (""). Since this is english wikipedia, usage of non-english texts may be restricted and be used where ever appropriate. W.r.t. the thesis title, the translated text may placed within brackets. Regarding reference please follow the guidelines at WP:REF and relevant templates are at Citation Style 1. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for further comments. I have corrected both Slovenian titles as suggested, and two references, which were not properly formatted, are now also in order. AndyKamy (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
VisualEditor issue
Hi Balablitz,
WP:VisualEditor is adding and then automtically removing some "span" tags for a couple of users. You seem to be one of the people affected. It's not your fault, but I need some information to figure out what's going on. Can you tell me what web browser, computer operating system, and Wikipedia skin you're using? (The "skin' is the appearance of Wikipedia; unless you deliberately changed it, then it's the default [called "Vector"].) You can reply here, leave a note on my talk page, or send me e-mail. It would be really helpful to know thesee things. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks for leaving note. Here are the information you queried:
- Web browser : Mozilla Firefox Version 26
- Computer operating system : Windows 7 Home Premium
- Wikipedia skin : Vector (default))
- --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! I believe you're the first Firefox user who has been affected by this particular problem, which is extremely helpful to know. Until now, I thought it might be a problem only with another browser. Thank you so much for replying. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Tiruchirappalli Railway Division
 | On 9 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tiruchirappalli Railway Division, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at 1,025 route kilometers, Tiruchirappalli forms the second largest division of India's Southern Railway zone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tiruchirappalli Railway Division. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviewing the article.Skr15081997 (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Skr15081997:Keep improving. All the best. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Gayathrie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Sun TV
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted this to the redir. You can't claim no context when there was something that you removed. It looks like a sound redirect to me, but if you feel strongly about it, it should be dealt with at RfD. Peridon (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Peridon:I removed the redir because of this. Being a sysop, you may suggest a solution for this. It'll be helpful. Thank you --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's nowhere near ready yet. Honing one's craft and stunning artistry (amongst others) are not acceptable for an encyclopaedia. The refs are hardly reliable independent sources from what I've seen of them. Own site, profiles, press releases and similar stuff. Until it's fixed, it would be tagged spam on sight. I've blocked the author with a softer block and a reading list. They are a PR type firm, but I've seen much worse. (One article was so full of buzzwords that I never even found out what the company actually did. The author never responded to my query...). Sorry to come down like a ton of bricks, but it's best to get things fixed before the review (which it is unlikely pass at present, and definitely wouldn't pass NPP). As to the redirect, I've tagged the target article for improvement of the refs, and wouldn't object to it going to AfD. When this new Salerno is sorted out, a decision can be made as to whether a bracketed distinction is made, or a hatnote on the new one - if the old one still has an article. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |