I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: it resembles an IP address. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
You have several options freely available to you:
If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
From 6.202.005.439.T: Hi! Thanks for letting me know. My parents didn't want me to put any personal identification on my User Name, so I picked some numbers that have to do with my school number and my class number.
That's understandable ... you can pick a username that doesn't contain any personal information ... it's really easy, a lot of users have usernames that don't contain any personal information at all. As it stands now, your current username looks too much like an IP address, and in any event makes it difficult for other users to communicate with you. Blueboy9601:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
Your DYK nomination still needs to be formatted correctly. The name "Jean Touzet du Vigier" needs to be linked and in bold, other relevant article names also need to be linked, and the "hook" needs to begin with an ellipsis (...), not with "Did you know". There are very clear instructions for this.
Also, please do not edit the template instructions when you are nominating a DYK, as you did here. There is a clear message at the top of that page saying not to edit it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Jean Touzet du Vigier
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Touzet du Vigier, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1689 Boston revolt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 21 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1757 Berlin raid, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 28 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stand of the Swiss Guard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle of Mount Tabor was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Smoozle (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Sulla's civil wars
On 18 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sulla's civil wars, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just as a comment, you shouldn't nominate something at DYK and then just abandon the nomination, particularly when so many issues have been left outstanding (one reviewer commented "For a long-time Wikipedian with many DYKs to his name the nominator is highly slapdash about references (and wikilinks). You know what I'm talking about - just dropping URLs and calling them references, and linking to a boxing champ instead of a self-proclaimed khedive... I just did some cleaning up, but with both the main hook (my definite #1 choice) and ALT2 lacking any references I can see, and ALT1 citing a Wikipedia mirror of all things, it still has to be a no"). Your enthusiasm is admirable, and it's good that you're working on some of the more out-of-the-way articles, but you won't make yourself popular by leaving so much tidying up for others to do. Making useful contributions to Wikipedia is not just about scoring DYKs. Don't take this the wrong way, it's meant as constructive criticism, but it might be helpful for you to have a go at taking an article to WP:GA or even WP:FA, just to see the final destination, to get an idea of where your articles should be heading - it'll save you a lot of grief in the long run. For instance it's a lot easier to sort out things like referencing as you go along, you really ought to be using the {{cite}} system (see WP:Citation templates) and be a lot more stringent on sources. For pre-WWI history you should be able to ref most of the basic facts via Google Books, in general I'd avoid searching Google in web mode altogether and when you do so, you really need to think hard about the quality of the websites you use (see WP:RELIABLE). Wikipedia mirrors such as Nations Encyclopaedia not only fail that guideline but circular references like that are positively harmful, creating an alternate wikiality. You may also want to check out the links towards the bottom of WP:WIAFA, in particular User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Hope this is helpful, keep up the good work. Le Deluge (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Category:Leech Lake, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. — JeffG. ツ02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any mistakes I may have made while changing the article name. I thought it would be correct to change it to the Portuguese version of the title. I had thought it best to follow the example of an article such as Donatien-Marie-Joseph de Vimeur, vicomte de Rochambeau. This article name includes a French title, "vicomte," rather than the English "viscount." After reading your post, I realized that most, if not all, articles about Portuguese nobles use the "English" version of their titles. I am going to change the name back to the one I created the article under, if it has not been changed back already. DCI2026 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dynasties of Early Brittany
I have posted a question on the reference page about an early Breton dynasty of rulers that may have controlled parts of Cornouaille and Domnonee. Any answers to the question would be greatly appreciated. DCI2026 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK: Final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire
Hi. I noticed that it's been a few days since you've added to this article. Please let me know if I can help in anyway with refs, since you've made such a great start and I'm currently researching this for exams anyway. Best, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to help with finding extra books, that'd be great - I've been without internet access and will be for a few days. Sorry, and thanks for the help. DCI202619:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
