User talk:Wolverine XI - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
Great to see that you're attempting to improve Narwhal to FA status (I might assist if I have time because I'm working on getting an Earth science topic to FT). However, you reverted one of my edits that unpiped inappropriately piped links.
From MOS:NOPIPE, a MOS page:
As per WP:NOTBROKEN and § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text.
We want direct links not redirects.
I strongly suggest you read the linked guidelines, as well as the reasons not to bypass a redirect on WP:NOTBROKEN. Also, who's "we"? Does not violate MOS at all.
Wrong. They are a violation of MOS guidelines per the quote from the MOS subpage I linked and the text I quoted, as the purpose of those piped links is to bypass helpful redirects.
Also, If you disagree, ask me on my talk page instead of reverting.
You did not do this. Instead, you reverted with an incorrect objection and told me to discuss it on your talk page before reverting, which I'm only doing because you do not understand why they should be unpiped and I follow WP:1RR. I kindly ask you to not do it again in the future. ZZZ'S 23:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Zzzs: I read the guideline pages, and I see that you have a point, but I still don't agree with the Linnaeus redirect link. The other links you altered seemed reasonable nonetheless. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 03:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Alright then. I'll restore the edit, but I won't change the Linnaeus piped link. ZZZ'S 04:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- No problem. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 05:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Alright then. I'll restore the edit, but I won't change the Linnaeus piped link. ZZZ'S 04:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I noticed your editing at Woolly mammoth and Columbian mammoth (and to a lesser extent at Ocelot). I'd like to ask that you try to consolidate these kinds of tiny edits into bigger ones so that the article history does not get clogged. In less than two hours, you made 208 seperate edits to the Woolly Mammoth article, each with minimal to no change and a byte count in the single digits. The same is true for the Columbian Mammoth article, only with 89 edits in roughly half an hour. As I mentioned above, this makes looking through article revision histories very tedious, and you'd be doing everyone a service by consolidating edits like these into one or two big ones. Thanks in advance. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @The Morrison Man: The thing is that I don't usually make "big edits". I like sticking to smaller, speedier and more convenient ways of editing. Usually, I forget that people use page histories for monitoring because I hardly use them. I'll try to tone it down a bit, but I can't promise those "one or two big edits" just like Shawn Michaels can't promise a return to the squared circle since he's well into his late 50s. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't need you to promise one or two, just that you do not use 208 edits to make arbitrary changes to 64 templates on a page. Thanks The Morrison Man (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You've just done it again. 181 edits on 57 templates on the common ostrich page in the span of 141 minutes. That's 1.28 edits per minute, and I can count the ones in the double digits on two fingers. Come on man The Morrison Man (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @The Morrison Man: I'm not sure if you are genuinely interested in my editing history or if you have this page on your watchlist. In any case, the problem is that I occasionally run out of ideas for adjustments, so I just stick to the kinds of edits I usually perform in such situations. My judgment can be clouded at times because I'm not always in the best of moods. I'll try my hardest to limit the number of edits I make to animal articles. I apologize for any inconvenience. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 12:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Consider doing this instead: create a version of the article on your own userspace and tinker around with as many edits as you like. Then after you're satisfied with a large enough chunk, put those into the article and update your userspace article with the main one as needed. TangoFett (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @The Morrison Man: I'm not sure if you are genuinely interested in my editing history or if you have this page on your watchlist. In any case, the problem is that I occasionally run out of ideas for adjustments, so I just stick to the kinds of edits I usually perform in such situations. My judgment can be clouded at times because I'm not always in the best of moods. I'll try my hardest to limit the number of edits I make to animal articles. I apologize for any inconvenience. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 12:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article is too significant to put up for speedy deletion. The article cites, media, books, television and notable people from the club. Please take a Look at St.Paul’s Boxing Club and Repton Boxing Club. The article regarding Orpington Boxing Club is worthy to be placed in Wikipedia as it’s the oldest club in Kent, second oldest in UK and the world. Box32 (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
On the basis of speedy deletion , this article would also meet the criteria ?
Also this club ?
Orpington Boxing Club is to significant for a speedy deletion.
I have also added sections, plus books and television. Box32 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I noticed you tagged my page Hizbia Dastur Mustaqil Somali for appear deletion because of copyright, what exactly can do to prevent its deletion Somaliaficionado (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Somaliaficionado: Just let it go, I guess. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 11:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey there, Wolverine XI! As part of the September 2024 NPP Backlog drive re-review process, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated two article you patrolled – Chong Tsun and Dmitri Pestryakov – for deletion. The reason for this is that I was unable to find enough coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No action is needed on your part, but feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Good luck on the rest of the drive! JTtheOG (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's your problem? Nominate it for deletion, but what you're doing now is against Wikipedia rules. If you think it's an unsuitable article, nominate it for deletion. This has been the practice for a long time. You cannot impose your opinions as if we were in a dictatorship! EpicAdventurer (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @EpicAdventurer: Considering how well it is currently covered at Imad Mughniyeh, I don't think the topic needs its own article. Additionally, this is a somewhat small event, therefore is not in need of more extensive coverage. I would also say that you were merely duplicating information, so much so that the information at Imad Mughniyeh went into more detail about his assassination. I chose not to propose deletion to the article because the title would work quite well as a redirect. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello good morning so I already made my decision to rewrite the article in my own words to authenticize its content. Can I least keep the sources for references or do I have to use another source? BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @BlkGeneral2000: Just get rid of the infringement whichever way you can. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 11:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Wolverine XI, when there is copyright violation in the page history, but it's not the entire article - ie, if there is non-infringing content that can be saved - please don't tag for G12. Request WP:REVDEL of the infringing diffs instead. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- asilvering: Oh, sorry, will request revdel next time. Thanks for this information. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Wolverine XI, when there is copyright violation in the page history, but it's not the entire article - ie, if there is non-infringing content that can be saved - please don't tag for G12. Request WP:REVDEL of the infringing diffs instead. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in September! - Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey there, Wolverine XI. As part of the September 2024 NPP Backlog drive re-review process, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated an article you patrolled, Justin Janssen, for deletion. The reason for this is that I was unable to find enough coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No action is needed on your part, but feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Good luck on the rest of the drive. JTtheOG (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article Tiger quoll you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Tiger quoll for comments about the article, and Talk:Tiger quoll/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply