Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:28, 27 March 2013

H.C. Wolfart

I put the info in the edit summary when I worked on it; look at the history of the article; I got the birth year from the Library of Congress authority file.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Notions (Winchester College)

Hello, I see you've put a Neutrality disputed box at the top of 'Notions tests' - but with nothing on the Talk page, it's not actually clear what's in dispute (or with whom). Your edit comment (It seems as though there are people (likely from the school) talking about how the "grand" traditions are only being upheld by certain people "nowadays") is very possibly correct - we can just "be bold" and revert any silliness if necessary. Which statements do you think should go? My point (in case I'm not being clear) is that if people/schoolboys are adding unsourced stuff about 'modern' notions with no evidence than their own opinion, we don't need to get permission to delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Galleries

Yes Galleries are used in articles but as referenced in the WP:IG you referenced:

One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of ", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

A example of good uses of galleries is provided in the link as well 1750–1795 in fashion. This article links pictures that cannot be adequately expressed through words. Though it may be "common practice" at least until I see links to other Good Article reviewed pages that use galleries in a similar fashion as on the Exchange District, then I just assume that this is simply a "Gallery" and the commons category link as is on nearly every GA page is sufficient. I am unopposed either way, but it just seems messy and a shameless image plug in its current format. Wiki is an encyclopedia not an image gallery, that is what the Commons is for. Krazytea(talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

When proposing the deletion of an article, as you did with Daniel Chillingworth, you must provide a reason for your proposal. You do so by adding {{subst:PROD|reason}} to the top of the article, replacing the word reason with a brief sentence explaining your delete rationale. In the absence of such a reason, I have contested the proposed deletion. If you wish to continue with the deletion process, please follow the steps at WP:AFD. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

The Forks, Winnipeg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Green space

Winnipeg Walkway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to LEED

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Article Probation on Men's rights movement

This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)