User talk:Speedcuber1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 14 November 2017

Welcome!

Hello, ReeceTheHawk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Ok, slow down. You're making a bunch of requests here that aren't necessary. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pennsylvania

I noticed you tagged the article as being overlinked. Could you give me a few examples? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFC drafts nominated for deletion.

Please stop nominating drafts that are still awaiting review at AFC for deletion. The deletion rationales you state are generally invalid, at most they might be valid AFC decline rationales, but that decision is up to a properly qualified reviewer, and would only in exceptional cases result in deletion of the draft. Your MFD nominations have effectively delayed the proper reviewing of those submitted drafts by at least a week. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

Hi Reece. I've noticed you've nominated a number of articles for deletion recently for reasons such as "doesn't make sense" and "has broken links" (this latter being in a template on the page, rather than in the article itself). Can I make the suggestion that you perhaps scale back your work in the "back room" sections of Wikipedia for a bit, just to get some experience of how the various policies work around here? Enthusiasm's a great thing, but if you've only been registered here for a couple of weeks and are jumping in headfirst without what looks like a sound base in policies and guidelines, it's probably not a good move.
I know you've probably used Wikipedia for some time before you registered, and may have even edited as an IP, but there's a big difference between making edits and getting into the more technical side of things. Happy to help, if you'd like. As you can probably see from my user page, I've been around here for more than a while, and would be more than willing to answer any questions you might have - at least, as far as I can. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free either to respond here or in a new section on my Talk page. I've watchlisted this page, so I'll see anything you put here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Please stop nominating drafts that are still awaiting review at AFC for deletion. The deletion rationales you state are generally invalid, at most they might be valid AFC decline rationales, but that decision is up to a properly qualified reviewer, and would only in exceptional cases result in deletion of the draft. Your MFD nominations have effectively delayed the proper reviewing of those submitted drafts by at least a week. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 13:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
+== Articles for Deletion ==
+Hi Reece. I've noticed you've nominated a number of articles for deletion recently for reasons such as "doesn't make sense" and "has broken links" (this latter being in a template on the page, rather than in the article itself). Can I make the suggestion that you perhaps scale back your work in the "back room" sections of Wikipedia for a bit, just to get some experience of how the various policies work around here? Enthusiasm's a great thing, but if you've only been registered here for a couple of weeks and are jumping in headfirst without what looks like a sound base in policies and guidelines, it's probably not a good move.<br/>
+I know you've probably ''used'' Wikipedia for some time before you registered, and may have even edited as an IP, but there's a big difference between making edits and getting into the more technical side of things. Happy to help, if you'd like. As you can probably see from my user page, I've been around here for more than a while, and would be more than willing to answer any questions you might have - at least, as far as I can. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free either to respond here or in a new section on my Talk page. I've watchlisted this page, so I'll see anything you put here. [[User:BigHaz|BigHaz]] - [[User_talk:BigHaz|Schreit mich an]] 01:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)