User talk:LieutenantLatvia/Archive 1

<!-- == LieutenantLatvia, you are invited to the Teahouse ==

Linking of dates
Hello, LieutenantLatvia. I've reverted your edit to Agrippa Menenius Latatus, linking the date 503 BC. The Manual of Style provides that years shouldn't be linked unless the year itself is relevant to the article. This means something other than merely that an event occurred in a particular year. Good luck with your future edits! P Aculeius (Talk)

Talkback
Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rectify (TV series)
I don't know what you were thinking, but I suggest next time you think twice before you re-insert a bunch of horribly written original research into an article, without any kind of explanation. Your templated "notification" on my talk page is a waste of electrons: if you wanted to leave anything there, it should have been a detailed explanation of which elements of that tripe you were going to source reliably with which references (and see Don't template the regulars). "Thank you" isn't much of anything. Now, I'm going to remove that stuff from the article again, and I would like to ask you to look more carefully. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that you, "LieutenantLatvia," just began using STiki earlier today, I highly recommend that you slow down significantly--more mistakes like this could result in your access being revoked by West.andrew.g.  Theopolisme ( talk )  22:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Yeah, I was being really speedy. It's kind of a new feature to me and I jumped right in before I knew all the details. Sorry if I caused any trouble, I'll take more time thinking about it next time I'm about to revert an edit. LieutenantLatvia (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. Because now the edit history of the article makes me look like I'm engaging in an edit war. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled by what I see. Why is this a good-faith edit? How is it not a BLP violation? I'm not saying that it is--I'm saying that nothing here gives me reason to believe that you can make such judgments. I'm not sure if you care for my advice, but if you're here only to revert edits, you need a better reason to be here. Create article content. That's positive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would (dis)-agree that a good-faith classification here is appropriate. The author was trying to add a personal fact, that if sourced and correctly formatted, might be worthy of inclusion in some type of "personal life" section. Although its not constructive in its current form, I see none of the surface malice needed to label it "vandalism". West.andrew.g (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy is the danger of that tool, and being speedy is the fastest say to get access to it taken away. If you would have looked, you would have seen that Drmies was reverting someone blocked for disruption.  Those are the kinds of things you have to look for, as well as the actual content, when reverting.  Otherwise, it is an abuse of that tool.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 00:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

 * In extending this warning, I will just reiterate the cautionary tone shared by others above. Precisely what makes STiki very powerful can also be your undoing if not used properly. You can always classify an edit as "pass" to allow another STiki user to help out. West.andrew.g (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Onchnesoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Villi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Helmet jellyfish
Hi LL, I saw your request and have done a bit of cleaning up and rewriting. It still needs a lot of citations though. Cheers, Spicemix (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)