User talk:Shillings1005

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Shillings1005! 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

-- 23:29, Friday, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

Leads
Yay! We've got Category:Pages missing lead section down to 750, the point at which it no longer shows as a backlog in Category:Wikipedia backlog!

This is something I've been plugging away at for years and it's great to have your help. To me it's a high priority to ensure that every article has a useful lead, seeing that 60% of mobile phone users (now the majority of Wikipedia readers) read no further than the lead, as stated in How to create and manage a good lead section. How are you locating the articles you improve? I often use this as a lucky dip. I avoid new articles which the creator may still come back to, and topics I find totally incomprehensible like higher maths and management theory. Nearly all the rest can be furnished with some sort of intro. Please carry on! Noyster (talk),  10:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of English words of Niger-Congo origin into English words of African origin. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2002 Qatar Open – Singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Félix Mantilla ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2002_Qatar_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2002_Qatar_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you - well almost!
Hi again from the Teahouse. I was just about to drop a barnstar on your page for "..seeking advice and guidance before making changes to Military article titles, then setting about diligently implementing them all once we'd established it was the right thing to do". But then I realised that you're still working away at them all, and haven't yet changed the ordinal formatting within each of the articles that you've renamed. I do hope you won't forget to do that, and not just leave the title changed without the lead (essential) or its contents being changed too. When you've done that, do please let me know. I rarely give out barnstars - but I think you will by then have definitely deserved one from me! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 14:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I will, I will. But this is a huge job, and I'm taking it one step at a time, starting with the article titles. Once they're done (and my rsi subsides), I'll go back and fix the first sentence of the lead. Et cetera. Et cetera. (You can help, if you want :)) – Shillings1005 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but I think it would have been far better to have followed what you said you were going to do and work through one article at a time to ensure conformity within each one, before moving on to the next. If you decide to give up half way through, you'll have a lot of inconsistent articles. Who will pick up the pieces then? (And, no, I definitely don't want to help with this task, right now, but thanks for the invite). I definitely think it should at least have been article title and lead-fix, just as we advised you at the Teahouse. So, I would ask you to not to continue in the way you are (maybe rest those hands a while) then go back and fix the leads of all the ones you've name changed thus far. (You can use your own 'edit history' to find each one.) That'll avoid a hundred editors saying, hey, you've made inconsistent changes, I'm going to change them all back, to match the articles' contents, and especially the lead sentence. I don't mean this to come across ungrateful, but this is the best advice I can give you, and I hope you'll see why I'm asking you to do it this way from here on in, please. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to say "thank you" for taking my advice onboard. I know it makes things slower - but it looks so much better seeing the leads modified too. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I’ve gone back to where I started from, and have begun changing the leads and infoboxes so they reflect the article title. I had already changed the ordinals of a majority of the 2d and 3d articles, though. And I did have a strategic purpose in proceeding the way I did: most of these squadron articles are extensively linked to one another, and it’s a much simpler matter to make a wikilink to an article if it already has the correct title. Also, all the moves I made now show links in the history both to the MOS entry and the archived discussion about its implementation, so any editor puzzled by apparent discrepancies need only check the article history to have the information they need right there in front of them. Moreover, I doubt many editors are going to change an article title to the strange 2d or 3d on the basis of what’s in the text without making at least a little effort to understand what’s going on. The exception is editors who have an interest in maintaining the traditional USAF terminology – and they’re going to change it back in any case as far as I can see. When I was moving articles, I saw in the logs many had been moved to the regular numbering before, sometimes more than once, seven or eight years ago; obviously, somebody else has been insisting on a terminology familiar to them (and it appears to stem from the writing on the embroidered patches of the squadrons). I was, like, placing a warning to them by linking inside the history to the MOS and archive – that was your suggestion and a good one. If it’s all right by you, I would like to continue to move articles to their correct titles for the reasons I’ve outlined. I'd do it in parallel with the lead cleanups if you approve. Kind regards. Shillings1005 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved a whole bunch of these articles, and I found that the best approach for me was to change all 2ds and 3ds in the article after moving it, and then see what links were now either redlinks (meaning an article needs to be moved or a new redirect created) or were redirects (meaning that a retarget or a swap may be necessary). I have  in my common.css to make redirects in articles stand out from normal links. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK