User talk:Pkbwcgs/Archive/January 2018
Disambiguation link notification for January 2An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ISBN fix may need improvementThis ISBN fix appears to work, but the syntax is wrong and will probably cause problems in the future. The square bracket that is at the end of the previously linked URL needs to be moved to the left of the ISBN template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
new MexicoPlease do not blindly change "new Mexico" to "New Mexico" without understanding the context. There is no "New Mexico border wall". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer grantedHello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages. Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. See also:
Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Re: Recent changeHi there Pkbwcgs. I realise that double square brackets around external links or unbalanced brackets are usually to be corrected. But I reviewed each and every instance before reverting, and in each case the usage was deliberate. Please have another look: Cephalopod size#References. I've used square brackets to add notes to some of the references. Likewise, the other changes were to direct quotes, where I have quoted the original sources exactly. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
AlertThis message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I am currently using AWB to clean up the pages in Category:Pages using infobox rail line with deprecated parameters. However, there are more than 1,000 pages in this category. It is okay if I cleanup all 1,310 pages or do I need a bot account? Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Reviewing AfC submissions
I would love to review AfC submissions. Am I allowed to review AfC submissions? Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: All The TropesHello Pkbwcgs. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of All The Tropes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Was recently self-redirected in a GF edit, it seems. Original target is fine. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |