Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes broke the timeline, I fixed it, please leave the date format as is. 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:A151:A69D:59C1:FF8 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared that I made some errors adding sourced genres to the "Forget" article. I am curious as to what errors have been made. Misterspaceman (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Misterspaceman, a great way to begin a conversation with someone is by offering even a simple greeting like "Hi" or "Hello". Your message strikes me as mildly passive-aggressive, which is unfortunate; please let me know if I'm mistaken. I don't quite understand what you're asking of me: what errors are you referring to, and what kind of explanation are you hoping for that isn't obvious from my edit? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to begin with a greeting, so hello :)! I did not intend to be passive aggressive, and I apologize if my comment caused a negative feeling. In fact, I was rather content and not angry, and right now I am also content. The errors I were referring to were some recycled sources used for "new wave" on the article, namely the Chicago Reader and Billboard sources. "Forget" has been called "new wave" across the Internet due to its strong nostalgia for 1980s pop, which was why the genre initially had 4 citations on the album's article. I didn't know that repeat sources were not encyclopedic, so I'd like to give my kind gratitude to you for fixing my edits. I also gave you a "Thank You" with a smiling chat box graphic as well. Have a good day, and Happy belated New Year! :) Misterspaceman (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Misterspaceman, thanks for the explanation. I can sometimes be sensitive about perceived tone 😖

Anyway, I'm glad there is no misunderstanding or dispute regarding our respective edits. I think all I did, apart from formatting stuff, was to remove two duplicate references. Cheers, and happy new year to you as well! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "CHPTRS".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of Ľudovít Štúr has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Newklear007 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Ever since I created the Teya Dora article, you have been an helpful editor in terms of improving the article and I never got to thank you for that.

However, I noticed you reverted my expansion of the lead, claiming the content is "unreferenced". But is it though? This edit is clearly supported by a citation of the artist's participation on the upcoming music competition. --Azor (talk). 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @--Azor, I see that now, thanks for mentioning it. That was my error, but if I could suggest you be a bit more clear in your edit summaries, it would help other editors understand your edits better. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comment at User talk:Nina&John Hendy, where you refer to them as "a single-issue, disruptive user". I totally agree, and I did consider blocking the account right away, but decided to just add another warning to the one you had already posted, and then watch for further editing. So far the account hasn't edited since I gave them that warning, and if it stays like that there won't be any need to do anything. However, if the same thing starts up again, either from the same account or from another one, I will be willing to reconsider blocking. JBW (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert other people's edits especially when they have added a large amount of content and sources to the article. You may have added citations needed tags before, but I was in the process of adding additional sources to the article and you provided no reason for your revert. If you have concerns, I suggest you explain them on the talk page before deleting sourced content. Thank you. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkon21, apologies for the wholesale revert. However, in the future, you should endeavour to provide an edit summary, and this way, your work is less likely to be considered questionable. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to accuse me on starting an edit war. All I did was providing an edit summary. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkon21, I'm confused: you engage in an edit war with me, but you don't want me to point it out to you?

If you are certain that the song was released through Polydor, you must demonstrate it with a reference, not simply claim it to be true. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask why you reverted my edit to The Little Mole (here). The current statement ('commuter train') is arguably as much Wikipedia:OR as 'long distance train' or 'indicating the family section'. I would argue citing a source in this figure caption would be an example of WP:Overcite, however, if you really wish, I can add a reference to e.g. this article. DWeir (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DWeir, please consider adding a greeting when communicating with someone—it makes if feel less like you're poking your finger in my chest angrily. I explained my revert in my edit summary: A commuter train is easily recognizable based on its form, whereas "indicating the family section" is not only purely speculative (as far as we know, the entire train could be decorated with the same design), but it seems like unnecessary detail for an image caption. Hope that helps. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But some filmographies like Stellar, Big Forest, and Bait does not have linked entries - Jjpachano (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jjpachano, I appreciate your message, but you should know that I'm much more receptive when people use courtesy, which includes saying hello first. I understand your point, but I don't think it's a justification. There are many filmographies that need cleanup. Personally, I think a selected filmography should mainly include linked entries, with few exceptions. This makes the article more tidy, especially when an actor has a large oeuvre. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I put some references. Thanks for help!—Miha (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following taken from Template:Cleanup bare URLs

Bare URLs—add this tag

• http://www.example.org/page.html

Good citations—do not add this tag

• Fuster V, Walsh RA, Harrington RA, eds. Hurst's The Heart. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011. http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=7812984.
• Fuster V, Walsh RA, Harrington RA, eds. Hurst's The Heart. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.

So please do not add bare url templates to the pages where there is no bare reference, Egeymi (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi, I believe you are mistaken. I think the page is replete with bare urls. They are not mere links, as is shown in the "add this tag" category on Template:Cleanup bare URLs, since they also include a title, but no other identifying information is provided, such as cite template, website/source, date, date accessed, etc. Please look at refs 6–22; do you not consider these bare urls? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases you mentioned we don't use bare url template, but another one, full citation is needed. So please use the correct template, Egeymi (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku. I was wondering if you could proofread the Fally Ipupa and Koffi Olomide articles that I have been working on since last year. I have expanded both articles, which were previously stubs. The Fally Ipupa article has been promoted to a "C-Class"; however, the Koffi Olomide review is still pending.

Thanks! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, no problem, I'll add them to the top of my list 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about edit overlaps with you at The Truth Will Out. Some of those were accidental: I hadn't seen your intervening edits as I was also editing there. I'll try to be more careful.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @shaidar cuebiyar, no worries, but thanks for reaching out. I'm happy we are collaborating on improving the page 🙂 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]