User talk:StudiesWorld/Archive 3

Incorrect PROD tags

Please stop adding PROD tags to stubs with references on butterfly and moth species, which are notable under WP:GNG.Eustachiusz (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eustachiusz: Sorry didn't know they were incorrect. Won't do it again. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK - easily done. No problem. Eustachiusz (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES for a statement about species. PamD 23:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing article

Denil61 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Nitta Yuma, Mass.

Thanks for picking up my mistake-I've blanked it (for deletion). There's a Nitta Yuma, Mass. also so I've blanked (for deletion) the Nitta Yuma redirect as well. All the best--DadaNeem (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

You might find it useful to have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which lists various categories of articles which can be taken as being notable (like species), or not notable. And the more general Wikipedia:Notability, and the links in the top right box there to guidelines for notability in particular areas. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia, but it's an interesting journey. Happy Editing. PamD 23:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks for the resource. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Please hold back on adding so many tags to well-formed short stubs: I've just seen this edit:

  • Do not add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag: it just wastes other editors' time
  • A two-sentence stub does not need sections
  • It's not that the lead is too short, this is just a stub
  • The reference form is clear
  • Unless you have any evidence that lepidoptera.pro is not a Reliable source, the content of the article appears to be perfectly adequately sourced
  • Yes, it could usefully show the sourcing as a footnote.

If you add irrelevant tags to an article it makes it more difficult to spot the relevant ones, if any. Please be more selective. PamD 23:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks! StudiesWorld (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol

Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm at wanting to jump right in and help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia but with only 67 edits to mainspace and a registered user since 17 December, you almost certainly do not have sufficient experience for this task. Although no special permission is required to patrol new pages, it is generally expected that users have demonstrated their knowledge of guidelines and policies by making significant contributions to content. This rarely comes before around 500 or more edits. To learn more about patrolling new pages, please read [WP:NPP]] and WP:DELETION. Above all, please read the advice at Wikipedia:Tag bombing and avoid using multiple tags as you did at Valery Kritskov - all this does is to WP:BITE new editors, Happy editing!

Thanks for the suggestion. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stubs tagging

Hi StudiesWorld!

I am from stub sort project and I've noticed you've been tagging a considerable amount of article using the {{stub}} template. This is a friendly reminder that the template should ONLY be used when the article is not tagged with any other more specific stub category. This is important because it makes the work of sorters like me twice as hard as we have to remove already tagged articles (such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc..).

Thank you! --CyberXReftalk 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberXRef: I'm new and did not know that. Thanks for telling me I won't do it again. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC) / 20:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]