User talk:StudiesWorld/Archive 3

Incorrect PROD tags
Please stop adding PROD tags to stubs with references on butterfly and moth species, which are notable under WP:GNG.Eustachiusz (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't know they were incorrect. Won't do it again. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK - easily done. No problem. Eustachiusz (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES for a statement about species. Pam  D  23:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing article
Denil61 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of Nitta Yuma, Mass.
Thanks for picking up my mistake-I've blanked it (for deletion). There's a Nitta Yuma, Mass. also so I've blanked (for deletion) the Nitta Yuma redirect as well. All the best--DadaNeem (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability
You might find it useful to have a read of Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which lists various categories of articles which can be taken as being notable (like species), or not notable. And the more general Notability, and the links in the top right box there to guidelines for notability in particular areas. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia, but it's an interesting journey. Happy Editing. Pam D  23:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the resource. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging
Please hold back on adding so many tags to well-formed short stubs: I've just seen this edit:
 * Do not add stub to an article which already has a specific stub tag: it just wastes other editors' time
 * A two-sentence stub does not need sections
 * It's not that the lead is too short, this is just a stub
 * The reference form is clear
 * Unless you have any evidence that lepidoptera.pro is not a Reliable source, the content of the article appears to be perfectly adequately sourced
 * Yes, it could usefully show the sourcing as a footnote.

If you add irrelevant tags to an article it makes it more difficult to spot the relevant ones, if any. Please be more selective. Pam D  23:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! StudiesWorld (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm at  wanting  to  jump  right  in  and help  maintain  the quality  of the encyclopedia but  with  only  67 edits to  mainspace and a registered user since 17 December, you  almost  certainly  do  not  have sufficient  experience for this task. Although no  special  permission  is required to  patrol  new pages, it is generally  expected that  users have demonstrated their knowledge of guidelines and policies by  making  significant  contributions to  content. This rarely comes before around 500 or more edits. To learn more about  patrolling  new pages, please read [WP:NPP]] and WP:DELETION. Above all, please read the advice at Tag bombing and avoid using multiple tags as you  did at  Valery Kritskov - all  this does is to WP:BITE new editors,  Happy  editing!
 * Thanks for the suggestion. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

stubs tagging
Hi StudiesWorld!

I am from stub sort project and I've noticed you've been tagging a considerable amount of article using the template. This is a friendly reminder that the template should ONLY be used when the article is not tagged with any other more specific stub category. This is important because it makes the work of sorters like me twice as hard as we have to remove already tagged articles (such as, , , , , , , etc..).

Thank you! -- C yb er XR ef talk 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm new and did not know that. Thanks for telling me I won't do it again. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC) / 20:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)