User talk:Kingrattus/Archives/2009/March

Possibly unfree File:Digital Wireless Baby Monitor.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Digital Wireless Baby Monitor.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)  -- &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea at all how I missed that. Sorry, reverted my tagging. You did it right. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits you've made need sourcing before they are added to the articlespace version, but that's about it, aside from style/format things (but I'm not the best versed in those around these parts). &mdash; neuro  (talk)  21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you for telling me when I made a mistake. It's a pleasure working with you. :) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure that that would be worthy of a separate article outside of webcast. What makes you think it warrants a separate article? &mdash; neuro  (talk)  19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be bold and create the article if you have reliable sources to back up the statements in the article. :) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Safety pin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply Sandbox is not needed for what I edited Kingrattus (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Baby On Board. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply How is Sandbox even related to what I was doing? Kingrattus (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Baby transport. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Chicco. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I'm trying to connect baby related articles together, so on the Infant page, so I can add all the ones I have connected to it, so its easier on parents to find information they might not know about. esp SIDS... I'm also trying to connect things that are high on adwords that are related to babies so its easy for parents to find info they need & might not know about that is important. Also I would have said something sooner if I had seen the first warning, but I only saw the 4th warning. Kingrattus (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See alsos are a faux pas, and are depreciated. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guessed from your username, otherwise I would have probably used 'their'. But anyway... ;) &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See alsos
For example, on the article baby sling, you added see alsos for Baby shower, Baby monitor and SIDS. There are ample means to connect articles to each other, but why should these three articles be linked from baby sling? Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While there is room to add related entries in a see also section, the general usage is to have a far more direct relationship to the subject of the article. SIDS is related to infants, but not to baby slings. You may also want to see if these items are included in categories within the article, a good guide of connectedness. Note that I am not the only editor who was surprised by the breadth of articles added. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)