User talk:Falkirks/2

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much!Falkirks 01:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sacred Edict of the Kangxi Emperor
Thanks for the nice comments on Sacred Edict of the Kangxi Emperor. It came within seconds of creating the page, not leaving me time to even create the redirect for Sacred Edict, which links to a number of articles, much less to go to other articles and create links.

Maybe the review process could be not quite so quick? Even a 30 minute delay built into it would save us time all around? Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I am not trying to cause you issues. If I leave articles in the new page feed they will be lost in the new ones that are created, that is why II jump on new ones quickly. You can of course remove the tag when you fix the issue but some people forget these things and if I tag the article it serves as a reminder to you and other editors of issues that are in need of fixing. Falkirks 01:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't normally tag things as orphans so quickly. Falkirks 01:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review!
I thank you for reviewing my article Melica mutica. Would like to know how it is now? Sorry that I edited it after your initial comment, it took me some time to find the Kew source.--Mishae (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks great now much improved. Falkirks Talk  03:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whats your take on this one: Melica montezumae?--Mishae (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Falkirks Talk  04:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Vemma

 * Thanks for reviewing it. Absolutely it could use more work; not only in filling sections, but adding citations, and fleshing it out with new content.  Turns out that finding references and filling them out took by far the longest amount of time, the content itself much less.  I kept going till it got too late to go on.  Hopefully others will run with it, or I'll get back to it eventually. Thanks again.  Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Coconut religion
My pages are auto reviewed. What seems to be the problem? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I just checked "The coconut Religion" and found very little information except for the one source. If you are on auntoreview it's my bad, sorry. Won't happen again. Falkirks Talk  05:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's OK. I guess you didn't check hard enough. Look at the page again... ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry it looks fine now!

Mary Archampong - First listed centenarian for Ghana
I am working on putting up content for Mary Archampong.. The only centenarian listed under the country Ghana. In the process of encouraging a listing of all people over 100. A campaign is under way for contribution by other Ghanaians. Deletion of this article which shows Mary's photo defeats this exercise..Please do not delete

Adtackie (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds like a good task. The issue is all the article has is a picture. This doesn't add sufficient context or assert the persons importance. This makes it worthy of speedy deletion. In future start these articles in your sandbox.Falkirks Talk  15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I you feel it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion them remove the template from the article. Falkirks Talk  15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Premature boilerplate tagging
Slapping boilerplate tags on new articles while their creators are still working on them does little beyond creating unnecessary edit conflicts and annoying article creators. It is likely one of the factors which discourages newer editors from continuing to contribute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern. If the user wants to work on them they should use their sandbox and not make it a public article. I do my best not to tag articles right away and just notify the editor in case they forgot to add references or something. Also I don't cause edit conflicts because I use twinkle and page curation. If we let pages go untanggged things get messy and we forget where to draw the line on how old the article is before it should be tagged. I make sure to tell new editors that they have written a great article and it just needs some cleanup to be encyclopedic. <font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  16:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unaware of what you're doing. You certainly don't "do your best" to avoid tagging articles right away; you unnecessarily defaced one I was working on about two minutes after the initial upload, while I was preparing the infobox. You don't understand how the automated tool you're using works; Page Curation certainly does create edit conflicts. You certainly do have a great deal of nerve, however, to issue an edict about how to create articles to someone with nearly 60 times as many edits as you do, especially since you've created no articles yourself and you just began active editing this month. You might consider actually reading the material linked in the boilerplate welcome message that seems to be one of your most frequent posts; it makes clear that sandbox use is not required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think your articles should be exempt from page patrolling go request auto patrol rights but at this point your pages are subject to review and tagging. I shouldn't deface your new articles but you shouldn't be posting articles that I have any reason to deface. Also I have been editing for two years but mostly anon and I just began editing on this account four days ago. That point about the welcome message is a good one but I have read it carefully and firmly believe in everything it says. You don't have to use the sandbox but if you don't want your article to be aknowledged for its faults you should start it in the sandbox. Personally I wouldn't care if someone tagged my article. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're a new editor with WP:COMPETENCE and WP:CIVILITY problems who appears unwilling to take advice. You ought to spend some time actually improving articles rather than slapdash slapping tags demanding that other people do some of the harder work to keep Wikipedia going. It's particularly stupid to slap "orphan" tags on newly created articles moments after creation, before the creator has had a reasonable chance to locate the appropriate articles and add active links. If you're going to keep annoying experience content contributors and make snarky comments demanding that they follow rules you've just made up yourself, you'll find your career here is likely to be short and unpleasant. One more time - use of the sandbox is not required, but use of common sense is, and you're certainly not showing enough of it.
 * Note also this rather bad edit you made just a few days ago . The link in question was not "broken" and should not have been removed; instead, an inexperienced editor had made a minor error in the display format. If you had taken proper care rather than jumping to an incorrect conclusion, you would not have made such an error. If you remain on this bullheaded course, you are likely to make many more. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry this happened to you. I don't want to have a further argument with you. Just use the Under Construction template in future and I won't add any tags.<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  16:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This heading pertains to premature boilerplate tagging not every single thing I have done wrong. Please create separate sections. Thanks kindly :) <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  17:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi! Sorry i did not know that i made this account today on wikipedia :). But thank you for the information! Iafufasfas (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, just remember in future. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Raith Rovers F.C.
Fair enough with regards to the 2013–14 Scottish Challenge Cup page but I put an edit request in for the Raith Rovers F.C. page as I am not knowledgeable enough with the way Wikipedia works to edit the home top to the new one shown at http://www.raithrovers.net/9017/201314-kit-revealed.htm can anyone who knows what to do edit it sometime this year!?

I put this on your actual user page originally by accident, feel free to remove. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

Iafufasfas (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try Help:Cheatsheet maybe you can learn a thing or two there. I did. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like I am responding to Lbarnett and lafufasfas. I am not really sure what happened. Do you know? <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't much help to editing a shirt, I think the other user is supposed to be the section beforehand, I maybe just put this in the wrong place. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC))
 * Your right maybe try the Help desk <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.4em 0.4em 1.7em,#58ACFA -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><font color="#FFFFFF">Falkirks <font color="#000000">Talk  22:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)