User talk:1a16

Your edits on Alexander the Great and a number of other articles
Hello. I have reverted your edits since we don't link everyday words and terms (such as battle, vine and so on). See WP:Overlinking. Thank you. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, please stop linking common words that are understood by all English speakers. Thomas.W directed you to WP:Overlinking above; read it and follow it, or you're likely to get into trouble for disruptive editing. Deor (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

really, I thought the fact of WP:Overlinking being relevant is less important than the usefulness of the link for understanding the subject of the article, this is with regards part. to the link: hero > Greek hero cult. Perhaps I should just add the link indicated into a See Also section, if that would be permissible. 1a16 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see not all links were reverted, just those falling under 22:25, 6 February 2017 > everyday words and terms. 1a16 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just eavesdropping here - even in an article on heroes from Greek mythology, a link to Greek Hero cult might not always be advisable. Wikilinks MOS recommends that we link the first instance of a term worth linking; but English "hero" also has a commonplace, everyday meaning, much diluted from its Greek original. And that's OK; no need for a premature, out-of-context link to something that will take many, if not most casual readers by surprise. In general, and particularly in introductions (which are best written in summary style) text should employ the principle of "least surprise". It's kinder to readers. Greek hero cult would of course be an excellent, educational and relevant link in the/a section on hero-cult to Achilles (I've not yet checked to see whether such a section exists - and now I've checked, and of course, there is. And naturally, it links to Greek hero cult. This being so, we don't need a "see also" link - these are meant only for topics of interest not already linked in article text). Haploidavey (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you are still overlinking, for example here in Albert Einstein. How often do you need to be told? Apuldram (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

linking
Hi. please read MOS:OVERLINK. Common English words and place names that most English speakers understand should not be bluelinked. The reason is that you only want people to click on bluelinks that will help them understand more about your article. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

America is a thing to understand 1a16 (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the best 1a16 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that you're continuing linking to common English words even after being repeatedly referred to MOS. Please be aware that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior is considered disruptive and may lead to a block. Eperoton (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

is an UNDERLINK basis 1a16 (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully  1a16 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

which is correct 1a16 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with linking to dictionary definitions of common English words. Eperoton (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

UNDERLINK supports linking that will help readers understand the article more fully, OVERLINK - common words is superceded by Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at UNDERLINK 1a16 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, OVERLINK is not "superceded" by UNDERLINK. They're both part of MOS. Please read them both carefully. UNDERLINK has nothing to do with linking to dictionary definitions of common English words and it doesn't apply to "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". Eperoton (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created to: Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. 1a16 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Creating User; 1a16/ al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa al-Sham possible defeat March 2017


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Creating User; 1a16/ al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa al-Sham possible defeat March 2017 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ahmad Musa Jibril


The article Ahmad Musa Jibril has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Too controversial for a blp where the sourcing isn't up to scratch - can be developed in the sandbox. Only one sentence in the Telegraph article. Plus having a WP article kind of promotes this man - fine if he's definitely notable, but I'm not seeing it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

American/US nationalism
Hi. I'm not disagreeing with your rationale in renaming the page, however, what you are doing is called a "cut and paste" move, which screws up the history of the page. In cases like this, you will have to submit a request to have the current redirect (US) to be deleted to make way for a page move. Once the current redirect is deleted, then you can move the title, which will automatically leave a redirect. The code, I believe is G13. Or you could go to Requested moves and request the page be moved. Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I made an additional change just prior to your message arriving with me 1a16 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for sock puppetry
Dekimasu よ! 00:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A girl listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A girl. Since you had some involvement with the A girl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question)  03:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)