User talk:Astro4686

Welcome!
Hello, Astro4686, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Safiel (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Jalowiczor edits
I'd have to disagree rather wholeheartedly with your edits to Peter Jalowiczor. First, having one big block of text makes it harder to read - it looked better on the page to have the multiple sections. Second, the page was organized in chronological order, with the discovery and work on each project in a section, and then the final section talking about the specifics of the papers themselves, which I thought made it a little more logical. As for the citation count, I can remove those, but that was to include his h-index and g-index (I don't know whether or not the g-index was miscalculated; someone in the -help IRC channel calculated it for me; however, I don't believe it is two), which may also be worthy of being removed; that's up for debate. Removing the sources seems an unhelpful edit as I used the sources for specific details the way it was originally set up, and they did not duplicate each other. I thank you for taking an interest in the article, but in this case I ask that you rollback the edit (or I can rollback myself) and in that case we can then move on and remove citation counts or fix the link or what have you as is deemed necessary. Thank you for alerting me on my talk page (this response has also been posted on the article talk page). --Nerd1a4i (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please be more careful...
You started to initiate an AFD on 17823 Bartels, saw that an earlier version had been deleted at an AFD on August 25, 2006.

You then applied a G4. This G4 was improperly applied. G4 is only supposed to be applied when an article is a recreation of the version that was deleted.

If someone were to have saved the deleted article, worked on it, beefed it up, added references, or new paragraphs, possibly addressing the concerns voiced in the AFD, and then put that in article space, the new improved version is not a recreation of the deleted version, and is not eligible for a G4 tag. It requires a brand new AFD.

Similarly, if someone were to draft a brand new version of the article, without using any of the material in the deleted version, then someone who wants to delete that new version has to initiate a brand new AFD.

If you had checked the article's revision history you would have seen that the brand new version I drafted, on August 30, 2006, was drafted five days after the original version was deleted. It would have required a brand new AFD in 2006, and certainly required a brand new AFD in 2016.

Further, it is considered bad form to not inform the individual who started an article that you have nominated it for deletion. You didn't do this for 17823 Bartels.

Please be more careful... Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)