User talk:Vami IV: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:23, 27 October 2016

Vami_IV User Page · Talk page · To Do · Contributions · Awards and Ribbon Bar · My Shinies · Sandboxes

Hi. I'm writing to users who have used the "coordinates missing" template in the last year. Could you please use the standard template "coord missing" instead? While the "coordinates missing" template is a redirect to the "coord missing" template, and thus works fine in articles, using "coord missing" directly makes a number of automated bot workflows work better by eliminating the overhead of having to track down the uses of "coordinates missing" to eliminate the redirects. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will make sure to do this in the future. I'm still learning to utilize Wikipedia's various complicated templates.--Vami IV (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Vami[reply]

Stubs

Hallo, Please don't add stub categories directly as you did to Schloss Waldenburg, but add a stub template (eg {{BadenWurttemberg-struct-stub}}. The template adds the displayed message as well as categorising the article. I've fixed this one. Thanks. PamD 17:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And when you're adding a stub tag, either the {{stub}} or a specific one, remember it goes at the end, not the top of the article (see WP:ORDER). Thanks.Pam D 17:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap, my bad dude. I'm still learning Wikipedia, so thanks for the help!--Vami IV (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Vami IV[reply]

Un-redirected this page for future usage

What do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect to Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler from Bad Neuenahr and Walporzheim so I could make pages for those districts. --Vami IV (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Vami_IV[reply]

Sorting Criteria in Template:Castles in Baden-Württemberg

Have you seen my comment in: Template_talk:Castles_in_Baden-Württemberg? Would you care to give your opinion there? --Wuselig (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for my medal! It's nice to know that my efforts are helpful to others. Good luck with Operation Stuttgart. We enjoyed our visit there several years ago.Jllm06 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. I never expected one for my minor edits, however numerous. It was quite a surprise (a good one). Best of luck in your editing and all your pursuits. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/me Tips helmet Vami IV (talk) Deus Vult!

SMS Württemberg (1917)

Hi Vami IV. I appreciate your enthusiasm with the article, but it's a long-standing practice that unfinished ships don't warrant articles, since there isn't all that much that can be said about them (though there are exceptions like Japanese battleship Tosa). This is an example of just about the best I could do on SMS Sachsen (1916) - sure, it looks like a halfway decent article, but it's about 90% boilerplate text, with only a couple of sentences about the ship itself. That material is better covered in the main class article, rather than needlessly duplicating text. If the ships had been expended in weapons tests or something like Tosa, then there would be justification for an article. But if the sum of the unique text is basically "the ship was laid down on X, launched on Y, and scrapped in Z", there really isn't a need for a separate article. Thanks, and let me know if there are any other projects I can help with. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dammit. Back to castles (for now) I guess. Vami IV 09:47 9/30/16 (CST)

If you're looking for German ships to do, you could always chip away at some of the WWII destroyers, most of which still need to be done. There are plenty of high quality sources out there for them too (see for instance an article that was already done). Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Zuffenhausen page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for your wiki-kindness Vami.

Much appreciation for the kind gesture.

I wish you much happy editing.

All the best! Marek.69 ^talk 04:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shall drink hardily! --Vami IV (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Gott mit Uns![reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
75	All-seater stadium (talk)	Add sources
1,092	VfB Stuttgart (talk)	Add sources
2	Nette (Middle Rhine) (talk)	Add sources
6	Thur (Rhine) (talk)	Add sources
5	Tamina (river) (talk)	Add sources
25	Ardgillan Castle (talk)	Add sources
278	Lock (water navigation) (talk)	Cleanup
2,439	Danube (talk)	Cleanup
54	United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (talk)	Cleanup
148	Ludwigsburg (talk)	Expand
21	J-Alert (talk)	Expand
4,505	Istanbul (talk)	Expand
86	Spanish–Moro conflict (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
53	Cochinchina Campaign (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,429	Cartagena, Colombia (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
18	Sieg (talk)	Merge
1,357	Group of Eight (talk)	Merge
68	Hanns Martin Schleyer (talk)	Merge
10	Karlsruhe Zoo (talk)	Wikify
541	Manor house (talk)	Wikify
667	Human capital flight (talk)	Wikify
4	An Shuxin (talk)	Orphan
3	Adam Freytag (talk)	Orphan
4	Andrej Dojkic (talk)	Orphan
6	Neidlingen (talk)	Stub
6	Avers Rhine (talk)	Stub
3	Haller Plain (talk)	Stub
5	Bregenzer Ach (talk)	Stub
9	Köngen (talk)	Stub
6	Allmersbach (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg

Hello, Vami IV. Thank you for reviewing the GA-candidacy of this article. Let me be a bit more clear about the date 1871. In that year, the city of Strasbourg, which had been a French city since 1681, became a German city again. Until that date, the Palais had always belonged to French families or administrations - in 1870, it was a propriety of the Second French Empire. In 1871, it came under the administration of the German Empire and, for a time completely lost its status both as a palace and as a monument to French art and governance. So this date is indeed a significant turn in the history of the Palais. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Maleficarum

Thank you for commenting on the Malleus Maleficarum article. The best way to help improve the article is by reverting Asterix's nonsense back to a more balanced version which has both sides represented. I tried to restore some balance in my last edit today. The main difficulty is that Asterix sits online all day reverting any changes while stuffing the article with more dubious authors, which made it impossible for me alone to win the revert war that he wanted to fight. Multiple people could finally make headway against him (but keep in mind the 3RR rule, of course, and report him if he violates it himself). Ryn78 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friend editor, we should report this cretin. I already knew that this Asterix person was ignoring or outright refusing criticism of the page, but reverting constructive edits is most likely a violation of the rulebook(s). Know where we would go to complain of this person's deeds? --Vami IV (talk)! Gott mit Uns!

Revision as of 05:20, 27 October 2016 edit Ryn78 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,583 edits →Malleus Maleficarum: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:23, 27 October 2016 edit undo Vami IV (talk \| contribs) 95,928 edits →Malleus Maleficarum Next edit →
Line 415:		Line 415:

	Thank you for commenting on the [[Malleus Maleficarum]] article. The best way to help improve the article is by reverting Asterix's nonsense back to a more balanced version which has both sides represented. I tried to restore some balance in my last edit today. The main difficulty is that Asterix sits online all day reverting any changes while stuffing the article with more dubious authors, which made it impossible for me alone to win the revert war that he wanted to fight. Multiple people could finally make headway against him (but keep in mind the 3RR rule, of course, and report him if he violates it himself). [[User:Ryn78\|Ryn78]] ([[User talk:Ryn78\|talk]]) 05:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)		Thank you for commenting on the [[Malleus Maleficarum]] article. The best way to help improve the article is by reverting Asterix's nonsense back to a more balanced version which has both sides represented. I tried to restore some balance in my last edit today. The main difficulty is that Asterix sits online all day reverting any changes while stuffing the article with more dubious authors, which made it impossible for me alone to win the revert war that he wanted to fight. Multiple people could finally make headway against him (but keep in mind the 3RR rule, of course, and report him if he violates it himself). [[User:Ryn78\|Ryn78]] ([[User talk:Ryn78\|talk]]) 05:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
			:Friend editor, we should report this cretin. I already knew that this Asterix person was ignoring or outright refusing criticism of the page, but reverting constructive edits is most likely a violation of the rulebook(s). Know where we would go to complain of this person's deeds? --[[User:Vami IV\|Vami IV]] ([[User talk:Vami IV#top\|talk]])! Gott mit Uns!