User talk:Caker18/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Caker18, 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 complete 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! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Google logo a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Google Logo. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Stub tags
Hallo, in this edit you added stub to a single section of a definitely non-stub article. Please note that the stub template refers to a whole article, so was wrong here. Expand section is the one to use - I've added it in this case. Thanks. Pam D  23:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Hello, I see the problem here. The section in question was not a stub, I was on connection issues and then I accidentally put the stub message in. Thanks. Caker18 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: About (January 6)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Caker18/sandbox/About Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Thegooduser was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 22:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

welcome and welcome/is
Hi. I wanted to let you know that I moved your templates to User:Caker18/welcome and User:Caker18/welcome/is, since they seem to be your own modified versions of Template:W-graphical and Template:W-basic. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mitchellhobbs
Thanks for the welcome ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot believe this.
Hello, Caker18

I dedicated years of my life to make Wikipedia what it is today, and I poured hours of blood, sweat and tears into making that edit for Shakespeare: The Animated Tales. The fact that you are threatening to ban me for making a helpful edit is preposterous. I demand a full apology immediately. I would also like action to be taken against "User: Dimadick" for repeatedly reverting legitimate edits that I have made to his talk page as well as another page. As you will see by reading his talk page, he has a clear history of reverting edits that people have made. I have been a target of one of these reversions, and now I am being threatened to be banned. This is unreasonable and quite frankly I will not have it.

Sincerely, 76.70.16.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.16.15 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Signature
When you add new entries to WP:AIV, please sign your name using our signature mechanism; just add for tildes after your report like this: ~ and that will insert a sig (which you can modify if you like; see WP:SIGNATURE). When you don't sign your reports, a bot comes along later and signs them, resulting in your bot-assisted signature taking up two lines, which makes the reports harder to parse. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was using Twinkle. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. 18:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have custom signature which violates our signature policy. I know it's a pain, but please change your signature in your Special:Preferences such that it contains a link to your user page and only takes up about a line rather than two or three. This will help keep discussion pages neat and organized. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Spam
You are irrelevant spam, and You will be treated as such. Leave a message of such content on my talk page once again, and You will be reported. No hard feelings. Best regards, Yours trully, Bora83ns (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I refer to the source always. Have You had checked my history of edits, You would have seen that. That's first. Second, name the edit in which i have missed edit, so that i know where the error occurred. That is the level of communication i appreciate and respect. Bora83ns (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tyee Middle School (June 11)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Tyee_Middle_School Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Dan arndt was: undefined

Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful
Please be more careful with your edits so you don't restore unwanted content or warn editors that don't deserve it. You might want to explain yourself on User talk:Well-Informed Optimist as well. Please note that editors may blank messages on their talk page (with some exceptions that don't apply to User talk:Draa kul. Sjö (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be more careful when reverting edits and warning other editors. This edit removed correct information and restored outdated info. While the information was unsourced and could be reverted on that ground, it didn't take a minute to check the university's website to see that prof. Congdon is indeed the new Vice-Chancellor. Rollback isn't intended for reverting unsourced edits that might have been made in good faith. In this case an "undo" with an edit comment would be expected. After that you warned the user at his talk page which is clearly uncalled for and against WP:AGF. I would suggest that you remove the warning yourself to show good faith.Sjö (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass welcoming
Please stop mass welcoming users - there is no need to do this, especially when they are obvious ne'er-do-wells and other users who have not even edited. Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Phraates V/GA1 and GA reviewing in general
Caker18, I'm not sure whether you have read the GAN instructions, including the reviewing, but this review in particular, and also your prior one, have both been abrupt and not what is expected for a GA review. They will also be found to be inadequate for the backlog drive you have just signed up for.

As it says in the Instructions, If the article is considered only partially compliant or non-compliant with the good article criteria, provide a review on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet and state what is needed to bring the article up to standard. You have certainly not done this here; instead, you have fail/pass/fail/pass/pass/fail, with no clue as to what the issues are, whether they're severe and pervasive or minor—no guidance at all as to what is needed to bring the article to the point that it meets the GA criteria. This is unfair to the nominator.

There also appears to have been very little time spent on your second review. You were finishing your first review between 18:17 and 18:31 UTC, joined the backlog drive between 18:46 and 18:47, and reviewed and failed Phraates V ending at 18:52.

You are comparatively inexperienced when it comes to editing articles at Wikipedia (a little over 100 edits to articles in all), and I get the impression that you don't have a good understanding of how the GA criteria apply. For example, the image criteria, which start Illustrated, if possible (and some GAs have no images at all): there are two images in Phraates V, both of which appear to have proper licensing to be used. Did you attempt to determine whether it was possible to have more images? Did you think that any of the images were not relevant? You have given no clue to your interpretation or why you felt the article failed these criteria, so it's impossible to tell the basis of your conclusion.

Before you attempt any additional reviews, you should certainly expand on this one, and as the instructions quote indicates, it is typical that once the issues are explained, the nominator get a chance to address the issues raised in order to bring the article to the GA level.

I did take a look at your prior review, and while the article is in generally good shape, it nevertheless needs a bit of work in the prose department to be fully "well written". Indeed, I've never seen an article that met spelling and grammar are correct without a few tweaks, which a reviewer should always request if they don't simply fix it themselves. I've made a few copyedits myself; an example of a sentence that that does not make sense as a complete sentence, from the Reactions subsection: The appearance of being involved with an invasion of extraterritorial immunity. This clearly needs fixing, and the nominator would be happy to make the fixes once this is pointed out. You are expected to point out each problem (and can suggest solutions if you wish), and therefore need to examine the prose throughout to make sure all sentences and paragraphs are clear and concise and without spelling or grammatical errors, which takes time and care. It also means seeing if certain phrases are overused (like, perhaps, "However") or could be removed as unnecessary verbiage. Please keep this in mind if you intend to do additional GAN reviews. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)