User talk:Nathanielfirst

Links
See also section links should be immediately related to the subject. Unitarian Universalism is not directly related to many of the articles to which you added this link. The idea is not to convey readers to an article on your preferred theme, but to help them find closely related subjects. hgilbert (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with hgilbert that some of your See also links are rather off-topic. On the other hand, See also sections should only contain links not already mentioned in the article proper. I have reverted some redundant link additions. Please have a look at WP:SEEALSO for general rules about See also sections. Huon (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted one also. It's good to add see alsos when appropriate, but please follow our guidelines and your work (which is appreciated) will be less likely to be reverted. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with these editors. It seems most of your See Also linkages are tenuous, or require a specific logical pathway (via original research) to understand the possible linkages. I've reverted a lot of your changes, as they either fit this issue, or they are overlinking (linking to topics already wikilinked in the article, itself). It would do you well to read WP:SEEALSO, and to start using article talk pages to gain consensus w/ the regular editors of those articles before adding more "See Also" linkages.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, I came to this page to make the exact same point about overlinking. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would add that additions of links should not be marked as minor edits. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And another spree of more of the same, without considering our suggestions. This is simply irrelevant, while these two, among others, are entirely redundant. I'll revert them, and I'm tempted to check every single one of your edits, probably reverting quite a few of them. This is a waste of both your and my time. If you persist in making such useless edits without regard to Wikipedia's guidelines and without joining a discussion when concerns are raised, your editing becomes disruptive. Regarding the minor edits, you can set your preferences so that edits are not marked minor as default. Huon (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Add me to the list of complainers above. Is there an actual person monitoring this account or is someone running some strange bot of some kind? If you're here it would be good to answer some of these people who are coming here in good faith to engage you.Griswaldo (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via live help, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! undefined tausif  06:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to respond
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make it clear that you need to stop adding these links until you can show that you understand how to add them appropriately, and that your next edit needs to be one responding at WP:ANI. Other editors are having to spend a lot of time clearing up after you. Your energy and interest suggests you could be a productive and useful editor here but you need to work with others and follow our guidelines. I don't want to block you but if you carry on ignoring others I will have to. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Religion in the United Kingdom with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Separatism with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Freedom of religion with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Ahura. DVdm (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

}


 * You are now aware that when someone edits your talk page, every page you look at will display a header notifying you? Something like this:

You have new messages  ( last change ).
 * Also, this is just one example oy you re-adding a link that had been removed. Per WP:BRD, when one of your edits, however uncontroversial it may seem to you, gets reverted, you might want to discuss it on that article's talk page instead of just reinstating it. Huon (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sarah (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tai Shang Ying Pian concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tai Shang Ying Pian, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Tai Shang Ying Pian was accepted
 Tai Shang Ying Pian, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Gino Lucetti copyright problem
I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/cc2gxx and https://libcom.org/history/lucetti-gino-1900-1943, which are copyright web pages. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Nathanielfirst! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 11:45, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing
Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fat feminism
Concerning your comment "Size of article becoming a problem" at Talk:Fat Feminism, please confine your comments to a discussion about how to best improve the article. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline V1.1
Hello Nathanielfirst, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.

The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. SPoore (WMF), Trust &#38; Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?
Hi Nathanielfirst,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust &#38; Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)