User talk:Erudite Manatee

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Everest copyedits
While a lot of your edits to 2014 Mount Everest avalanche were productive and have been retained, other were not helpful. For example, you may prefer to remove "the" wherever possible, but standard writing uses the definitely article where appropriate. You may prefer American English, but the article is written in British English. Per WP:ENGVAR, the version of English chosen by the article's early editors should be retained. Both Ericoides and myself have explicitly denied that certain edits were improvements. Other editors have implicitly denied their usefulness by undoing various changes. Wikipedia works on consensus which means sometimes you won't get your preferred version of an article. Instead the majority preference should be respected, which in this case means using "the" and other English you may consider wordy. Thanks for understanding, --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay detention camp dead link removal
I put back the dead links you've removed. They shouldn't be removed without replacing them with new ones. By removing them, you're making it look like many of these issues are now unreferenced, making them subject to easy removal. Even when a paragraph has multiple references, sometimes those references only support part of the claim. You can't know without seriously reading them that the ones remaining will continue to support the paragraph the way that the old link used to. Besides that, dead links are still useful for tracking down information. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) How are dead links useful when tracking down information? If the link is dead, that means there is nothing to see and the link is useless. Whoever was responsible for posting now-dead links can re-link to archived content on the Wayback Machine, but don't waste readers' patience by re-posting dead links. It makes the subject irrelevant without active links readers can view. You might as well post content without any references at all if the only support for them is dead links.

Woman article
Per this, you probably misread the internal link. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)