User talk:EagerToddler39

This user may have left Wikipedia. EagerToddler39 has not edited Wikipedia since 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Thanks much for the welcome and suggestions team. I look forward to contributing on wikipedia.

I suggest using the "show preview" option as this will lower exhaustion to the servers, and also allow you to change your contributions prior to submitting. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response but thanks much for the suggestion. I have been using the "show preview" option regularly. At times, however, when I'm editing incorrectly formatted citations in a just a section of an article it shows as looking ok on the preview page. After I've saved it then I realize that there is an error produced on the reflist. I've since started correcting citations by opening the full page and not just the section in which it appears. That way, when I hit "show preview" I also see if there is a ripple effect on the reflist. Thanks much for your input. EagerToddler39 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Why did you make this change: [1]? Without an edit summary, I couldn't tell. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39, thank you for your interest in fixing cite errors. Please keep in mind however, that cite errors are often the result of vandalism, so it's important to always browse the revision history to see what caused the error before applying a fix. In many cases, reverting to an earlier version is the best way to address these errors. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for that tip.EagerToddler39 (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most certainly welcome. This implies that everything is now in good working order! Have yourself a great day EagerToddler39. Happy editing. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recommend you to visit [here]. She was known as sex symbol in india only. But the page demands person with international icon characteristics. cheersMajorcaptain (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your delete. I was asking you to explain that in your summary edit as it could have been interpreted as vandalism. Those little summary edits are quite helpful.EagerToddler39 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I ask to take a relook at date of birth of Pranitha Subhash,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranitha_Subhash the information mentioned in the box regarding her date of birth is wrong.While dob under family is 17 oct 1989,the info in the box is 17 oct 1992.Pranitha subhash is no way a 20 year old₳₳₳ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.76.14 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, EagerToddler39, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for copyediting and otherwise improving so many articles, as well as for your translation work. Keep it up! :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I just reverted your edit to the Adult ADHD article. The reason the page numbers are outside the refs is so that you can refer to more than one page in a book without needing two separate refs. That way, you can have ref 1^p.22 and ref 1^p.55. --Slashme (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my latest entry in Luncarty. I obviously did some thing wrong. Editors like you really help!Inver471ness (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Inver471ness. We all go wrong sometimes but it's always good to have each other's backs.

Ah, thank you for fixing the dummy lapse of mine in that article. I hadn't even noticed that I'd made it -- rather late last night -- till Wikipedia news on "My Talk" brought to my attention the fact that my goof had been fixed. At least it wasn't quite late enough that I yielded to any temptation to add childhood recollections of my own! Masalai (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All in the community spirit. We have each other's back and fix each other's oversight.EagerToddler39 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/EagerToddler39

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Nasal polyps. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--213.89.96.233 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eager Todler 39!

I want to refer to Carlos López Bustamante´s page. I created the original in Spanish and found great that a translation to English was made.

I have a good photo of Carlos López Bustamante and I would very much want it to be in the article. Unfortunately, I am not that good at editing photos and I would like to know if you can do it. The photo is completely legal and idetified. It comes from a family source an has never been edited.

Please write to my e. mail:

imaparfr@hotmail.com

Best,

Isa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry imaparfr@hotmail.com I can't send a personal email. Therefore I hope you follow this page to see my response to your request for a photo edit. I do quite a lot of translating of articles from Spanish to English. However, I have no experience editing photos. Perhaps you can check out the Wikimedia commons area for persons who are able to edit photos. Once that has been done you can attempt to insert the photo into the article. If you are unable to do that at that point I am very willing to do so. However I'm not a photo editor. Thanks much.EagerToddler39 (talk)

Hi, Carlos Page is not anymore an orphan. I wrote three more articles related. Together with Eduardo´s page it makes 4 links. I hope you don´t mind that I remove the tag, do you? Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tnaks for the answer. I will try to do that.

About Eduardo López Bustamante: I also created this page and I would like to start translating it. I can start to do it myself but I wouldl like to know if I can get your support on these matters, because I have very little experience in Wikipedia. Is it possible?

Isa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely I'm willing to collaborate on translating the page with you. I'll check it out and make any necessary comments on the articles talk page. Anything you think you are unable to manage in terms of formatting etc., please contact me and I will work on the article with you.EagerToddler39 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great to find the page and start to work. Thanks! I have to leave tomorrow on a bussines trip for two weeks and I don´t know if I will have much chance to continue writing everyday. In the meantime, I would like you to make next title "Enfrentamientos con el gobierno", whcih is difficult for me, so I can start writing the text sooner or later. Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am back at my PC. I didn´t touch anymore Eduardo´s page in order to avoid more mistakes on my side. I didn´t have my own PC and being so bussy I could not concentrate in the same way. I find great what you did for the page during the last two weeks and I am sorry I couldn´t write more this time. Thanks so much. I will start to look at the page again and I will come back to you. Best, Isa--213.89.96.233 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been good collaborating with you on the article thus far. I've looked at your edits and you've done a very good job of rewording phrases I had problems putting together properly. I must admit that I pay more attention to translating from Spanish to English and not too much on specific sentence structuring in my initial edits because I know you would come back and do fixes where I mess up. There is a bit more work to be done here but it should be finished shortly. One an improvement I believe is needed is the introduction of in-line citations. The article itself is good but is inadequate without these inline citations. I know you indicated that you were the original creator of the Spanish article so it would be good if the next aspect of this project, after translation, is to provide inline citations. Thanks much.EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn´t have been able to do anything without your cooperation. Of course you pay attention to translation and that is exactly what I need. For me is easier to make the sentences in a different way because I know the subject so well that I can even change the text. I made all the pages of this family in Wikipedia, except for one. However, for this only page I provided all the information and support to the writer. I know perfectly the subject. When we finish the text we can concentrate on the citations. It might take some time, because I have to go back to the books and I am not sure I have all of them anymore, but some of them I keep. That is if you need the page number where sentences come from. I don´t know how this is managed in Wikipedia.

One important thing I want to tell you is that there are one or two paragraphs that I have to remake in the spanish page. I have better information now and when I read them again I understood that they lack something. Once I correct them in Spanish I will tell you. Great to work with you as a team and thanks again. Best, Isa--213.89.96.233 (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While page numbers may be good, they may not be absolutely necessary. It would just be good to be able to point the reader directly to the sources where specific information come from. Of course page numbers for books are the ideal but if these are lacking just a general reference to the text should suffice. Continue the good contributions you have been making to wikipedia.EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then is not so difficult. We will come to that soon. --213.89.96.233 (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JUAN DE ÁGUILA...Service in Flanders...

1. ...he was sent to releive Gehent castle. From whom? Oranges? Protestants?

2. Fisrt paragraph: why did he mention González de Mendoza´s promotion? The page is about Águila. I would eliminate it and write directly after ...and participated in the battle of Mook...--213.89.96.233 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with point number 1. but the Spanish article doesn't say. As for point 2 this one I believe should remain. It was as a result of Mendoza being promoted that there was a vacancy for captaincy which Del Aguila later filled. I imagine the original writer in Spanish was recording details chronoligically that's why it doesn't seem to fit in properly where it is currently placed.EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know he does not say and of course you translated it correctly, but that is a problem for me to coopertae on this page. I am not a professional translator and, because of that, I need to understand very well the content in order to produce a text in English. It is that what I mean.

2. I have now read the sentence in the original page. The author was correct. I made a change in the English one. You can take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. I read the page in French. It is much better and I was able to understand the content. I wrote a new sentence in English that makes more clear the story at that point. Take a look.--213.89.96.233 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo López page: I had to stop after translating one section because it came a message to the page saying that I am promoting López or something like that. You can check my answer to that person. See what you can do and tell me when I can continue working on the page.--213.89.96.233 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2012 (UT

Hi Eager, I have worked on Eduardo´s page, editing and taking away a lot of text. We could also take away the poem, if you think is better. What do you think?

Can we mark the citations as you have suggested earlier? Please take a look at the page and tell me what you think. Best, Isa--213.89.96.233 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isa, I'm away from the 'editing office' for a short while. I'll take a look at the page and give you adequate feedback some time next week. Just doing some minor edits in the interim (nothing that requires too much concentration, lol). In the meantime keep making improvements. I'll comment once I've had a chance to give it a good lookEagerToddler39 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isa,

I have looked at some of the edits you have done with the page thus far and they seem quite in line with what is required. I also made a few adjustments in the recommended articles and also some other general edits that I noticed needed to be done. Once more the use of in-line citations would go a far way to improve this article. I believe some additional work needs to be done editing the article to make more encyclopeadic. I'll take a rest from it for a few days and take a look again to see if anything jumps at me. In the mean time do what you can to continue to improve the article. I also went back to the Carlos López Bustamante article and did a few edits there too so you may check that page out as well. EagerToddler39 (talk)

Hi, I saw what you did on Eduardo López page. Thanks for that. I think next step would be to locate citatatios. After that you will see the page in a much better perspective. I know where citations have to be marked, but I don´t know how to do that in Wikipedia. Should I indicate you a very first one for you to make it? If I see how you did maybe I myself can make all of them. What do you say?

I have not look yet at Carlos López page, but I will do it as soon as possible. In any case, the best is if i don´t even TOUCH that page. You are respected but not me and if "someone" sees that I have gone into that page, that person will start to go into the page complaining and it will be destroyed. I´ll tell you here what I think could be changed but I will certainly not edit. I hope you understand my position. It´s probably the best.

Thanks a lot and I look forward to hear from you. Best Isa.

Isa,

Adding citations on wikipedia is quite easy. You just need to put the citation between these two tags like so: ^[1] (Please read this entry on the edit page in order to understand clearly how to insert your references. You will notice that the citation is also automatically numbered for you). They will automatically appear in the reference list so you don't have to worry about adding them a second time. Why not go ahead and make an attempt and we'll see how it works out.EagerToddler39 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take a look and come back with more questions, but before I do it I want to agree on citation "policies".

There are two kind of citations.

1. One is a citation using the exact words the author uses in the text. They can be written in quotation marks or in Italics. Someone, as well as you, have been changing those in the text from Italics to quotation marks. I don´t mind if that is the best for Wikipedia but, in that case, all of them have to follow the same rule. I cannot change anything in this respect because as soon as I do it someone else changes it back. I would appreciate if you take a look and be sure that all the citations have follow the same "style". Whatever you prefer is OK for me, but it is either or.

2. Another kind of citation is the one not refereing to exact words used by the author. Those citations are a combinatoon of words used by the person writing, refering to a long text produced by the book´s author and with the same meaning. These citations are not ever written in Italics or quotation marks, but they should be indicated. In that way, those who are reading can go to the book and search for more. On my view it is necessary to mark them in the text. Everything written on "my pages" is taken from books and bibliography is the essence of a good research. I want to make citations throughout the text. Is it possible?

Regarding your questions,

1. Yes I was placing the quotations back in quotation marks in addition to leaving them italicized, personal preference I guess. I will go back and ensure that this is consistent throughout. 2. I believe you are misunderstanding a bit when I refer to inline citation. You simply need to indicate the book that the information is taken from, not necessarily insert additional quotations. There is a list of references on the article page but no indication of what information was taken specifically from each source. You could add citations as follows. For example

Eduardo López Bustamante was a professor at the Maracaibo School of Law, Secretary General of the Zulia State Government and Minister for the Zulia State Supreme Court. He was also an active reorganizer of the Zulia State Bar Association in 1935 and member of its board.^[2] THIS IS EXACLY WHAT I MEAN!! so is obviously possible.

Once this is done the reader will know that the information in that specific statement was taken specifically from that source. Hope this helps.EagerToddler39 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at number 2 in your text. Thanks. I will check if I manage the "mechanics" of Wikipedia citations.

Yes, Isa. You are right on track. Hope you see you beginning to add the citations soon. EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have not been able to understand how to make citations on the page. I will look more and more an if I cannot at all I will come back to you. However, there is something you can do for me. We obviusly need numbers at the book list. Otherwise we cannot refer to them. I don´t know how to number that list either...sorry. Can you do that for me? Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isa, (Remember to read this message by clicking edit as some information I put will not show up in the read view). Please check out this page where I have done an example of what I expect you to do with the Eduardo Lopez Bustamante page. First look at the page in the reading view and notice that there are footnote numbers in the body of the article. Also note that these footnotes correspond to a number under the References. Then I want you to click edit and see how these footnotes are laid out in the body of the article. I have simply copied the references you had in the original article and placed them between the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). templates. This automatically generates a footnote in the reference list without you have to number the reference list. In fact once you have inserted the references in the body of the article you can delete those that are in the current reference list and simply place this as you will see in the sandbox article that you are checking. If you are still uncertain about something be sure to contact me again and I'll be happy to help.EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will review it tomorrow and I will work on it. Please take a look on the changes I just made on the page and tell me what you think. Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have located all the references, but some things have to be corrected. I could´t manage. Can you do that?

1. Some books in the list are part of the text that I was forced to remove. I don´t know Wikipedia´s rules well enough to decide if they can be included in the page in some other way. For me there is no need.

2. Three of the references have the first name of authors before the last name. They are number 6 and 7, as well as that one of author José Rafael Pocaterra, which should be Pocaterra, José Rafael.

Thanks! I have learned a lot today. Isa.

I have made some of the changes you requested. Regarding references that were not used in the body I have hidden those references on the edit page. Someone simply reading the file won't be able to see them but future edits of the page will allow you to cite them in the body of the article if you so desire - that's why I didn't completely remove them. It doesn't matter either way whether the last name comes first in Wikipedia. What matters is that you used either method consistently. I've made the relevant changes requested re that aspect. RegardsEagerToddler39 (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and for everything I have learned from you in the last days. I am really gratefull. I see what you mean and I understand it perfectly. Thanks for the changes. From my point of view, there is nothing more I can do to improve the page. What do you think? Anything else to be done? Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isa, I believe there is much more that can be done to improve the article but I don't think it's anything the two of us should work on. A good article is one that has received contributions from multiple editors. Let's wait and see if anyone else checks out the page and makes any recommendations/suggestions/changes. There are some areas of the translation that read a little awkward in English that need to be improved also. I think I have to step back from it for a bit and then have another go at it. For now it's a passable article. More collaboration needed before we can determine that it is truly good. All the best in your next project. Just sit back and watch the page and see what other editors come up with.EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

- When it comes to the language (translation) perhaps it can be improved. You could start by telling me which paragraphs or sentences should be changed. I know so well the subject that instead of translating the text I will rewrite. That will make it. So, if you locate those areas for me I will gladly do it.

- I am planing to take away the poem and the words of López editorial. They are irrelevant for the English readers and very difficult to be translated properly or understood. Can we keep them "somewhere" in the same way you kept those books from the references?

- When you mention my next proyect it sounds "good by", but I would still need your cooperation. This pages are interwoven and if one is to be translated all of them should also be. The pages I made are interwoven and I plan to make them all in English. I would not work anymore in translating. It´s almost impossible. It does not become OK, no matter how good you are in translating. For next pages I will simply write in English a new text with part of what is incuded in the Spanish page. I would need your cooperation at least in opening a new page. Would you be prepare to do that for me?

All my best and thanks a lot for your help and for teaching me son much, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Isa, I'm always willing to collaborate with you on any useful project. I'm currently working on other articles and I am not going back to the Lopez Bustamante for a while. Once I've gone back and looked at it with fresh eyes I'll let you know which areas I see need improvement as well as make some improvements myself. Till then. EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree completely. I will also stay away from the page for some time, though I think now is perfectly OK. I have made a lot of changes that you have not seen.

Great that you can continue cooperating in my pages. I want to make the page "Imprenta Americana" in English (there is an original in Spanish). Can you just opened the page for me? I will not translate. I will rewrite the page selecting style and information for the English readers. You could make it as a so calles stub (?) to be completed by contributors. I know nothing about the matter but I suggest it because I just finished a new page of Eduardo López Rivas that was opened free to write. I did not translate the original in Spanish. That would be crazy because is a very particular Spanish. However, I am happy with the result.

So, can you open that page for me? Is it possible?

Thanks a lot for your help. Best, Isa.--213.89.96.233 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isa, I'll take a look at the page in Spanish and hopefully get it started for you within the next day or so. A bit pressed for time now! Will let you know if and when it's up.EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is OK now. All tags removed. Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Just to sign. I always forget.--213.89.96.233 (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just want to say a big thank you for helping me finish Gnel of Armenia. I had a few problems with the formatting of citations of sources.

Anriz.

No prob. I noticed that you had a little difficulty with the citations and was glad to help. It still needs some additional formatting into sections though.EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Recently you used Reflinks to clean up some refs on Adam DeVine. Unfortunately, there's a bug in Reflinks which creates spurious author names for Youtube pages. It's discussed here. I doubt the bug can be fixed soon; so in the meantime it might be a good idea to keep an eye out for this, and maybe put in the right author names by hand..? bobrayner (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the info. I'll keep my eye opened.EagerToddler39 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- for this, I forgot to do it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Vodafone Global Enterprise. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional! I was attempting a cite fix and reverting was the only way around it. Didn't realize that the Afd notice was removed in the process.EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain why you reverted my edits to Vodafone Global Enterprise as vandalism? --Biker Biker (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. Please see previous comment on in response to Snotbot  t • cEagerToddler39 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Vodafone Global Enterprise, because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You filled in 41 references on Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, I greatly appreciate the handwork & effort. 1dayFloripa (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. All in the name of improving wikipedia.EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my last message up on this page, in Carlos López Bustamante section. I was into Eduardo´s page today. Isa--213.89.96.233 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MESSAGES!! I wrote under Carlos López Bustamante today, but something is different on that section. Take a look and from now on I write here.

I have changed in Spanish a paragraph under "Enfrentamientos con el gobierno", and made the same changes in the English page. I will also remake soon the paragraph on the article about the king of Spain. It can be much better and easier for you to translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eager! My name is Mihaela. Thank you for fixing reference on Sigebert IIIʻs page.--User:Mychele Trempetich

You're welcome Mihaela

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:Isle_of_Wight_Academy#RFC_regarding_mention_of_segregation_academy_in_lead_paragraph.2C_parallel_version_of_history. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, post a new help me template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'm trying to reproduce the population template below into this article on English wikipedia but I'm having difficulty finding an equivalent template in English. The original is found here.

{{Gráfica de evolución|tipo=demográfica|anchura=650|color_1=green|color_2=green|color_3=green|color_4=green|color_5=green|color_17=blue|nombre={{PAGENAME}}|1857|725 |1860|659 |1877|700 |1887|754 |1897|799 |1900|787 |1910|540 |1920|666 |1930|659 |1940|553 |1950|583 |1960|488 |1970|322 |1981| 295|1991|293|2001|264|2010|369 |notas=<small> {{leyenda|#0c9605|[[Población de derecho]] (1857-1897) según los censos de población del [[Instituto Nacional de Estadística (España)|INE]] del siglo XIX.}} {{leyenda|#88c2cc|[[Población de derecho]] (1900-1991) o [[población de derecho|población residente]] (2001) según los censos de población del [[Instituto Nacional de Estadística (España)|INE]].}} {{leyenda|#115cc3|Población según el [[padrón municipal]] de 2010 del [[Instituto Nacional de Estadística (España)|INE]].}}</small>}} 

Sadly, it doesn't look like there's an exact copy of that template on en.wp (which is too bad, as it's rather nice). Your choices appear to be:

• {{bar chart}} - Make your own bar chart
• {{Historical populations}} - Vertical population list
• {{Demography}} - Horizontal population list

And of course, there's always the possibility of porting that template over here… (hint, hint). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much DoriSmith, I had already checked out the templates you recommended but resorted to seeking help as I really loved the graphical presentation on the Spanish wiki. Sadly I'll have to work with what's available.EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a stab at translating the template but it's not working and I'm not sure why at this point. I thought the issue was that it used aa secondary Spanish template inside, Gráfica de evolución/period and I would have created that but it doesn't appear to exist; /period must do something defined on the Spanish Wikipedia that we don't have here. Just not sure. Anyway, maybe someone who truly understands template coding can fix it. For what it's worth, which is little at this point, it's at {{Demographic evolution}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much User:Fuhghettaboutit. I tested out your template and I note the errors. I have no experience creating these so I'm of absolutely no help. I've sort of resigned myself to modifying the chart from the Spanish wikipedia into one that's already workable here. I don't know if you'll want to go at it again (Some of us like a challenge and won't give up until we've succeeded - are you one of those?). Just letting you know that it is not 100% necessary as I could try to make do without it. Thanks much once more for your help.EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's fixed! I asked another user who is good at template to take a look, Mr. Stradivarius, and he was able to find the problem (it was that two other templates needed to be imported as well to make it function). The template is now at {{Vertical bar chart}} and should be ready to use immediately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yippeee!!! Thank you for not sparing the effort! I was about to nod off so I won't do it right away but rest assured I'll get to it ASAP. You were of tremendous help Fuhghettaboutit!EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing the citation template on the Serer history article. I meant to do it but it slipped my mind, so much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, don't mention it! Happy to do my little part.EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	On behalf of WikiProject Eurovision, I would like to thank you for sorting out the bare links on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Feel free to become a member of the project if you desire. Wesley Mouse 11:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my url error. I was in a hurry that night and have not had a chance to get back on wikipedia for a few days. So here is a genuine Busch Garden's Cheeseburger for you. Viewmont Viking (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome Viewmont Viking.EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EagerToddler. Thanks for fixing the citation on the Corby by-election article. If you look at the article history I must have tried a dozen times to fathom it out and couldn't! doktorb _words^deeds 05:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I laughed when you said you tried so many times to figure out the problem when I can't even remember how I noticed it. Fresh eyes always make a huge difference I guess.EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reapplied the edit to remove the inline citation to 'Bhodisattva Warriors' by Terry Dukes / Nagaboshi Tomio - as noted in my talk edits on Mushindo Kempo and the general martial arts project page, there is good evidence that this book was fabricated and highly unreliable, as part of an attempt to generate a new 'plastic' martial art, Mushindo Kempo. It is therefore a very unreliable source, and citing it without explanation of this 'back story' (a) gives it unwarranted credibility and (b) could be a red herring for people doing research on the subject. Wushinbo (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EagerToddler39 - cor, you just come on here to try to get a cult leader removed from wikipedia and you end up getting sucked into helping to maintain an encyclopedic reference source - innit amazing ;-) I have reappplied my edit but this time justified the edit in the edit comments page as I think is appropriate, I've also joined the teahouse thing to learn how to edit better - and I think I managed to avoid hurting other references this time! Thanks for your help and your dedication. I wonder can you help me to know the process to get the 'Mushindo Kempo' page deleted? Wushinbo (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wushinbo, Thanks for understanding that I intended no harm when I undid your edit the last time. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. After you are satisfied that you still wish to nominate the article for deletion you can do so by inserting the Afd template (seee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) at the top of the relevant article. You must also ensure that you specify this in the edit summary using the formula - Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName with NominationName representing the name of the article to be deleted. There are additional steps to follow once this template is added. The article I indicated previously, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has all the information you need to guide you. Happy editing.EagerToddler39 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wushinbo (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit was reasonable in terms of challenging length and tone. However, I don't think anyone will really know what the BuzzFeed "Fuck Off!" business was about as it is currently written. It is a pretty amazing exchange given Reines' position. Could this be rewritten to clarify just what was said and why? MaximusGeneral (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so many edits recently I can't seem to follow this post or recall to which article you are referring. Please clarify.EagerToddler39 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EagerToddler39. You have new messages at January's talk page.
Message added 06:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

January (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think my recent edit to this entry is vandalism? It no longer makes any sense to say that a stay is in place for 90 days, since the 90 day period is over. The stay is now in place because the case has been appealed. Something went wrong with it -- not sure why -- and I can fix that... but...

You should use the word vandalism with care. I have a long track record of respected edits. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your motives are correct. However, the edits you made were not constructive. It would have been better to delete the information you believe were no longer relevant, rather than make erroneous edits. Or, at the least, request someone else to do so. Bear in mind that your edits are immediately visible to all users of wikipedia thus, at face value, your edits were vandalising the article.

You have a message in my talk page under Imprenta Americana. Isa--213.89.96.233 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Para-alpine skiing. As I was actively editing the article, adding the source and then writing the text, there was a six minute lag where the source was in the article with out being used in the article. If an article is actively being edited like that, can you wait before hiding the unused citations? --LauraHale (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't realize that the article was still active.EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Colombia/COTM. mijotoba (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out what I've been working on: User:Mijotoba/List of Presidents of Colombia. take a look and give me your feedback on changing the current List of Presidents of Colombia.

The first thing I noticed was that that lists were easier to read because of the reformatting of the colour layout. That was one thing that I was uncomfortable with when I first met the page but did not want to make any adjustments, in any case I was not able to fix/adjust it. I also like that you found a way to include the interim heads of state in a manner I believe would be acceptable to other editors. Excellent job! Indeed it is a better and more concise read. I say go ahead and update the article with these proposed changes. I know it may be a tad difficult to make similar adjustments to the rest of the article but it's worth a try. I imagine just what you have managed to do thus far took considerable time but it would be good to see the layout of the main article improved as well. EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hated the list too, even though I was the one who did it years ago, I am no expert when it comes to wikipedia formatting but I have learned more since and it pained me to take up the task cause it was complicated first around but your comment was just the incentive to do it. Im now working on fixing the other periods before I put it up, but Im having problems with the wikitable that I dont seem to be able to fix and I have no idea who to ask or where in wikipedia to go for such help.mijotoba (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I checked out the page again in an attempt to understand the problem you're having with the wikitable but I didn't see any evident formatting issues. I'm no expert either so I probably won't be of much help. Have you tried Wikipedia:Help desk? Or you may post this template {{helpme}} on your talk page, detailing the problem. Someone will turn up soon to help. I've tried that template with some formatting issues I was having while editing an article and I received help within 10 minutes. Keep up the good work.EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that some of the format is not displaying the way I want it to, so for example in the List of Presidents for the Republic of New Granada: During the New Granada the Vice Presidents were elected for a four year period two years after the election of President, so Presidents would have one VP for two years and another for the next two years and when the President left office the VP would still be in office when the new President was inaugurated if that makes sense, so for example President 1's last VP was José Ignacio de Márquez, so he served two years as President 1's VP but then he was elected president himself so in President 2's VP box (Marquez's VP box), the first halve should read "vacant" since there was no VP as the constitution did not allowed either the President or the VP's to be replaced until new elections would take place; the second halve would belong to Domingo Caycedo who would carry over to President 3's VP box, the second halve would read Joaquín José Gori and carry over to the first halve of President 4's VP box and Rufino Cuervo would occupy the second half and extend to the first halve of President 5's VP box, then Jose de Obaldia would occupy the second half of President 5's VP box and carry over the whole of President 6 and President 7's VP boxes (his term still being four years but those President's terms being less than one year each) and still occupy the first halve of the "vacant" president's VP box, then Manuel María Mallarino would occupy the second halve of the "vacant" president and carry over to the first halve of President 7's VP box, the remaining halve would read "office abolished" since the vice presidency was abolished then (or maybe Mallarino could occupy just the first third since the office was abolished in 58 leaving two thirds for "office abolished" to better represent the time frame). Makes sense? or how do you think I should phrase it for when I place the template/ask for help? mijotoba (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand clearly what you are getting at and how it would be a challenge formatting a table to meet those criterion. The explanation seems clear enough to me but I perceive that the person offering the help would ask for clarifications if necessary. Would it perhaps be a bit easier to simply repeat the names of the vice-presidents whose term is carried over to another presidency. It appears that you want columns with the names of the Presidents on the left in one column, their terms in office in another etc. and then the column on the right you want to be split into two rows. The upper row would be for one Vice President and the bottom row would be for the second Vice President. I was attempting to create a table with these criterion but I was meeting with very little success. I'm sure there's expert help somewhere on en wikipedia that would gladly respond.EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried to represent what I understood of your explanations using the table below. Did I understand you properly?

President	Vice President
José Ignacio de Márquez	Vacant
	Domingo Caycedo
President 3	Domingo Caycedo
	Rufino Cuervo

EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rockstar_(drink)#Malicious_reference_removal.3F_-_Examiner.com - a discussion regarding apparent Malicious reference removal from Rockstar_(drink) re. your edit to that article - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockstar_(drink)&diff=516531221&oldid=516389040 Your summary was: (Removed unusable and duplicate citation). -Psrq (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Rarkenin. EagerToddler39, thanks for creating Plaza Luxardo!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for the article. Can you find some sources to confirm it and add them? Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observations. However, it would have been nice, though, if you had waited a few moments longer before recommending fixes. If you check the page was created less than 1 hour prior and is still in the process of being edited.EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of other points about the article, which I found while stub-sorting:

• If you use one reference more than once, please give it a name and then refer to it by name, so that it only gets listed once in the references list - you can see how I've done it in this article.
• Please don't use dates in the ambiguous all-numerical form "04/03/2011": an American would misread this as 3rd April (crazy, illogical, but unfortunately true). It's much safer to stick to "4 March 2011". By coincidence this is exactly the date (day and month, anyway) used as an example in WP:DATEFORMAT to show why that format is never used in WP. PamD 15:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you already made some contributions on the page. Appreciated.EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thanks for the helping hand on fixing the infobox I screwed up on the article USCGC Winona (WHEC-65). Sometimes it is really hard to see the forest for all the trees in the way. If I can return the favor sometime, let me know. ( Cuprum17 (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I recall that quote (los pinos y el pilar) from some literature I read in Spanish but can't pinpoint the text right now. Actually I'm working on creating a few articles related to military history right now and I'd appreciate a second glance. They are not articles that other editors would gladly be interested in so I would be grateful for a second look at any of them. Check out one of these for me José Riquelme y López-Bago, Conquest of Majorca, Luis Castello Pantoja, Treaty of Capdepera, Llibre del Repartiment (Valencia) or Llibre del Repartiment (Majorca). You don't have to worry about doing any major editing, I just need someone to take a look and give constructive feedback. Thanks much and I'll gladly return the favour to you again! All in the name of improving wikipedia. EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article Conquest of Majorca and you have a good article that needs a few tweeks. Right now, I would rate it as a Start Class article. I have some suggestions for improvement, but first I would like to tell you what I like about the article. The illustration in the infobox is very striking and catches the eye immediately. You have plenty of pictures to catch the eye and make the reader want to read the article. It looks like there are a multitude of references used, and that is good.

For an article to get B class rating in the MILHIST Project, the first thing I would change is the lede. The length of the lede as it stands right now is far to long. Basically, you want a lede that lets the reader know what is covered in the main text as an overview of the material. Referencing does not have to be provided in the lede, but it can be referenced if you wish. Some of the material in the current iteration of the lede should be moved to other secions of the article. The rest of my suggestions for improvement have to do with referencing. At MILHIST as well as most other projects, to obtain a B class assessment, at least each paragraph needs a citation to the reference material. The are several paragraphs in the article that are not currently referenced. This shouldn't be to hard to do if you are familiar with the material in the references that you used. The other problem I see with the article's referencing is the style used. A style that I recommend be used separates the the citations from the reference itself as in the article that I authored, Coast Guard Squadron One. Please note that the citations themselves appear in one section and each reference material used appears in a separate section with complete publishing information. Additionally, when this article needed explanation of the material without cluttering the main text with details, a footnote section was added. This might not be necessary in all articles, but does come in handy at times.

One other comment, you have an excellent start on this article. A last section could be added that explains what the results of the Conquest of Majorca means in terms of subsequent history. Of course this would have to be referenced somewhere. Don't give up on this article, it needs some work, but it also needs to be at least B class to have utility to the reader. I can, if you wish, help with formating the references as my time allows ( I have a part time job and take care of a relative that is disabled). If you want help, just leave a comment here and I'll watch this page for a while. One other thought, since this was a military conquest, a MILHIST Project tag could probably be installed on the Talk page. I would feel more comfortable in awarding a rating that way, as I am a member of the project. Good luck. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your very thorough, but positive feedback. I'm grateful that you took a good look at the article for me. What I am especially grateful for is that you examined an article that I am still working on. If you check the edit history you'll notice that I only recently created the article and have been making additions to it as the days go by. Since I'm still working on it your input is helpful in helping me steer future edits correctly. Your recommended help with the citations would be really appreciated. However, you don’t have to worry about working on it immediately as the article has tons of content to be added. I'll hit you up on your talk page whenever I think the article is mostly complete and then you can provide help then. Once again I really appreciate the tremendous help you are offering in return for just a small error I fixed for you. If there is anything that you will for me to collaborate with you about on Wikipedia I would be ever willing to help again. Thanks much and I'll keep in touch. EagerToddler39 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Morsay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morsay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann98 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For Sixties Scoop page, Can you tell me how to cite as a source 'Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada Report-archives'? Figuring this out will become increasingly useful as this particular TRC moves into the USA, a.k.a. TRC-North America, beginning February 11, 2013. Thank you! SoodieUSA (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Message left on my talk page:

"For Sixties Scoop page, Can you tell me how to cite as a source 'Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada Report-archives'? Figuring this out will become increasingly useful as this particular TRC moves into the USA, a.k.a. TRC-North America, beginning February 11, 2013"

I believe the message you sent is in response to my reversion of an edit you made to the Sixties Scoop article. I believe I deleted this un-sourced content:

<Truth & Reconciliation Commission Canada formed to measure and aaddress the grievances of 'Sixties Scoop' victims has not addressed the victims and survivors of 'Sixties Scoops' who were placed in the USA, a.k.a. USA Placed Victims-Survivors of The Canadian Scoops, and not kept within Canada. February 11 and 12, 2013, this Truth & Reconciliation Commission will begin with a swearing in ceremony in Maine, USA.>

I would recommend rewording the edit to make it more encyclopaedic such as:

<The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Canada was formed (when) to measure and address the grievances of victims of the Sixties Scoop.(cite a source) This commission does not take into account those victims and survivors who were adopted by families outside of Canada, specifically the USA. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission USA has been formed to cater to victims/survivors in the US population (I'm assuming this is what you mean). The swearing in ceremony for this commission is slated for 11th and 12th February 2013.(cite a source)>

Please ensure that you cite relevant sources for the information that you insert. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for help citing sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to determine which sources are acceptable on Wikipedia.EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Baker, Jr. died exactly one year and one day ago.And that section is only for recently deceased people.His death anniversary was yesterday.He does not belong on that list anymore.He has ceased to be a long time ago.It is basic math.His entry for the living is obsolete!His entry for recently deceased is as of yesterday also obsolete. What part of his removal is not justified?ENLIGHTEN ME!Killuminator (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. My apologies. Please fix the cite error generated by the edit. The source "state20120121" was removed from the body of the article in your edit and should therefore also be removed from the reference list. Sorry again. EagerToddler39 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EagerToddler39. You have new messages at Talk:Ethiopian_Airlines.
Message added 15:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiProject Spain member,

There is currently a proposal to ban articles concerning a large area of southern Andalusia from appearing on the Main Page of Wikipedia in the Did you know? section. This would affect a significant number of articles within the scope of WikiProject Spain. If you have a view on this proposal, please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs‎#Proposal for one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs. In addition, you may have a view on an alternative proposal to lift restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles on DYK - please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs#Proposal for lifting the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the support section because it made numerous unsourced claims, and sources it did provide included an undergraduate's blog and a science article which does not support the conclusion drawn. It seems to me the section was flawed beyond repair and needed to be done over from scratch. For now, it is little more than unsubstantiated propaganda. 100.40.9.22 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons for deleting the content may very well be justified, however, no edit summary was given. The explanation you have provided here should have been supplied in an edit summary or, better yet, a discussion initiated on the talk page of the article to gain feedback and consensus from other editors interested in the subject matter. Section blanking by an IP editor is a red flag for vandalism.EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no harm. Certainly not vandalism. I am new to editing. I have only made two or three edits, usually to remove things that were unsubstantiated. 100.40.9.22 (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Wikipedia welcomes deligent editors. I didn't intend to frighten you in any way. If you need help or guidance on any Wikipedia project I'll be happy to help. Happy editing. EagerToddler39 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EagerToddler39, I am looking for some elp on Wikipedia for an article I have been working on, I created an article for Sean Erneto Macias in my sandbox and submitted it for approval. Unfortunately the request was denied. Some of the comments were that there were not enough sources to show thy te peron is notable. The article is found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Ernesto Macias. Are you able to look at the article for me and explain exactly what I can do to improve it. Thank you very much and I will appreciate ny kind of help you can give.MelanieOca (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MelanieOca. Thanks for contacting me for help. I'll take a look at the article for you and give you some feedback as soon as I'm able to do so. EagerToddler39 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for your help on this! I appreciate very much that you were able to assist fixing the problems and getting the article posted MelanieOca (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That player has played in a fully-pro league kept by wikipedia.So he is notable Debojyoti (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the tagging you had not provided any sources but I notice you have done so now. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EagerToddler39, you nominated the article Frans Wiertz for deletion on grounds of missing references. Please see the external links for references. Everything in the article is covered by them. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taketa, I notice from your contribution history that you do not particularly fancy inline citations. I'm removing the tag. However could you please supply inline citations. I'd hate to think someone will edit the article some time in the future using the same rationale, that the external links section is enough. There must be a way to identify from where specifically the information is taken.EagerToddler39 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding inline citation takes quite alot more time for me in writing the article due to the annoying codes <ref></ref>. I prefer therefor not to add them. I guess I could add a standard inline citation to the lines that always come back in these articles. I'll see what I can do. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources - "editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed." It may seem tiresome to you now but it makes things so much easier for the rest of the community in the long run. Besides, the annoying codes to which you refer are not so burdensome. I'm sure you didn't take more than a few seconds to insert them. Even if the sources are not properly formatted into a template you should still add the information within the <ref></ref> brackets. Editors like me, tend to go in after you and fix them. However, if no inline citations are there we are not able to help. I'm willing to help you out with these, once you do the basics you could let me know and I'll will tidy them up. Regards. EagerToddler39 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you can cite every single sentence to the first external link (except the very last sentence, which I have provided a ref for). I'll take over the ref method for the next article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your efforts to create uniformity in taxonomic pages, however where brackets are located is meaningful and important to keep. If you are curious, when species have a name in brackets after them that means that the individual who named them have classified them differently (under a different taxonomic name). No brackets means that the species is still classified as they were originally. Thanks again for your efforts! Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks much for educating me. I imagine I gave you a lot of work having to undo my edits! My apologies and thanks again for the lesson in taxonomy. P.S. I tried finding that information under a WikiProject or something. Do you have a link you could direct me to so that I can further my knowledge on these conventions. I don't want to make silly mistakes like that again. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life wasn't of much help.Thanks much!EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! That's really the only convention that's not intuitive. Species names (genus species, so Homo sapiens) are always italicized and capitalized like so, and those little names next to the species names are actually references to the publication that initially named them. It takes way too long to write out the full citation in the reference section for each and every paper individually, this awaits a bot that is competent enough to do the heavy lifting for us. Thanks for your interest! Mattximus (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly realise that the text has indeed been taken from another source, *namely my own blog*, www.independentindian.com and that the substance of the text is completely sound and academically well referenced. There is no justification whatsoever for deletion.DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took this long in responding to your query. I notice Users Jimfbleak and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom have adequately addressed the concerns I had when I nominated the article for deletion. Please locate reliable secondary sources to support the content of your article, address the fair use concerns and rewrite in a neutral tone with a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the subject of the article. It appears you have a close relationship with the said Surendranath Roy and thus you may not be the best person to prepare a balanced article. For further questions or help with recreating the article, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am terribly sorry but as I have explained to all these anonymous persons, I am,relatively speaking, vastly experienced in editing and publishing from well before the Internet or Wikipedia were born. My assessment is that these anonymous (self-styled) editors have gone about a deplorable act of near-vandalism which is being disguised as an attempt at editing. Whoever deleted the contents should restore them, following which I will reasonably consider altering the text where necessary in the light of comments received.DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. Getting familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and ensuring edits fall well within the ambit of these guidelines may appear daunting to a new editor. The administrator who deleted the article meant no ill-will to you personally. The article violated one of the guidelines that have been established by consensus over the years. I am willing to assist you make a second attempt at the article, properly sourcing, formatting, and avoiding copyright violations. Yes, I also know that you've expressly stated that you are willingly contributing your material to Wikipedia. Whatever experience you've had outside of Wikipedia will be quite useful in expanding its knowledge base. Wikipedia's standards are very different from those in other publications. Wikipedia is a community and it is that community consensus that keeps the wheels turning effectively. If you are interested in allowing me to work with you, I will guide you on how to create your sandbox where we can experiment on an article together without worrying that someone will delete it. This is a good place to start with works in progress. Once you and I are comfortable that you are able to create non-contentious articles on Wikipedia, then you may make another attempt at posting an article. Is that ok with you? Contact me here so we can further work to get you familiar with Wikipedia, which I hope will become your new home. EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(butting in) I think that's a generous offer, and I'd only like to add that your interactions with other editors will be eased if you assume they have acted in good faith Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am a known real person (look up my blog or look me up at Facebook) with, I repeat, relatively speaking, *vast* editorial and publishing experience from before the Internet and Wikipedia were born. I will not be engaging in conversation with those who are not identifiable persons by real names, and who seem to me, to be, at best, young techie enthusiasts who are novices at editing and have to hide behind pseudonyms. Wikipedia is a marvellous invention and it is getting better. But my experience in this case has been what I have said: adequately referenced text was deleted in an act of (near) vandalism posing as editorial pontification. What was deleted needs to be restored, and then I will account reasonably for the comments made. No, I do not think Wikipedia can teach me about the business of editing yet. The Chicago Manual is usually enough. DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit the hand that tried to help! My apologies for extending that helping hand. All the best with your self-righteous attitude. I made no pretense at having as vast editing experience as you nor did I wish to try to educate you on something with which you are evidently quite familiar. I was simply trying to help you learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia - what's acceptable, how to go about creating an article that meets Wikipedia's criteria etc. Each organization has its own formatting/referencing/editing guidelines. It's unfortunate that you are only prepared to use the conventions of one, Chicago. Wikipedia has its own Manual and editing guidelines which you seem unwilling to learn. I rue the day of your encounter with MLA, APA, Turabian, Harvard or any of the others. I imagine you may be just as antagonistic to learning those too. I am still offering my hand of help whenever you change your mind and are willing to understand better the organization of volunteers (Wikipedia) that you are welcome to be a part of. I reiterate Jimfbleak's admonition that you assume good faith. EagerToddler39 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hello again, nothing self-righteous at all -- merely saying that a known real person with, relatively speaking, vast editing experience with books, newspapers etc does not like to be vandalised by anonymous amateurs on the Internet, no matter how much good faith they profess. Fair enough? Try to see the point of view. DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Have Facebooked this interesting discussion at my Wall. DrSubrotoRoy (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept your adoption offer if it is still available! A.S. Williams (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi EagerToddler39! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EagerToddler! I'm so happy you've decided to join the WDL project. Welcome! I noticed you're interested in some specific areas (but remain open minded, too). That's great. Over the past few months I have been building huge to-do lists featuring content from WDL and how it can help Wikipedia content in any language. You can find a list of Latin America & Caribbean content here. Make sure you watch list it, as I'll be adding new content as it is released. Thanks a lot for joining, and if I can be of any assistance - just ask. SarahStierch (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39, I have edited the article, kindly take a look and advise if I need more editing. Many thanks and have a great day ahead. :) Mr S Green 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnsnake (talk • contribs)

I've noted your edits to the article but I'm not able to give a thorough assessment right away. As soon as I'm able to examine it carefully again I will give you feedback. At a glance, though, I recommend completely removing the section titled "Costumes". EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the section to "Theatre shows" instead of "Costumes". These are all the theater projects that Hayden Ng has dressed over the years from 1992 - 2012. Let me know what you think. Many thanks again, I REALLY appreciate you taking the time to go thru the article.

Mr S Green 08:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnsnake (talk • contribs)

i would like you to help enhance my artical - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Safari_Lagoon_Waterpark . if you have the time.thanks and regards.Eric Materson (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article and give you feedback in a few hours. EagerToddler39 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39! Thank you for your contributions to Dyslexia! You wrote the following sentence:

Clinically reported findings requiring further substantiation suggested that most all the many coexisting writing, spelling, math, memory, speech, concentration, sensory, balance, coordination... symptoms and related co-morbid disorders found characterizing dyslexics were consistent with and likely determined by multiple overlapping cerebellar-vestibular dysfunctioning mechanisms.

I found this sentence hard to understand and copyedited the sentence into:

Clinically reported findings requiring further substantiation suggested that almost all of the many coexisting writing, spelling, math, memory, speech, concentration, sensory, balance, coordination symptoms and related co-morbid disorders that were found to characterize dyslexics were consistent with and likely determined by multiple overlapping cerebellar-vestibular dysfunctioning mechanisms.

Could you please check if my copyedit is correct? Also, if possible, could you split this sentence into several sentences, in order to improve readability? And actually, the whole paragraph is very difficult to understand for the general reader. Wikipedia guideline Make technical articles understandable says that every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 08:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wies%C5%82aw_Dawidowski

Hi, I am the one who wrote the article on Mr Dawidowski and I've just learnt that you disqualified the article I submitted a few days ago. Although I am relatively new to Wikipedia and therefore expected that there would be some minor glitches in the entry that will require changes, I am amazed, however, to see your reasons:

You say: "Entries ... should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." - As the subject is a Catholic priest, there are references to the official information agency of the Catholic Church in Poland (ekai.pl), one of the TV stations, and an NGO he co-chairs.

"Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject." And I say: find one. There aren't any. The word "superior" is a part of the professional/monastic title "Provincial Superior". In operation for at least 600 years.

As far as the CV style is concerned, the ordering of the entry corresponds to the one in Polish Wikipedia (BTW: not written by anyone I know) that has been there for quite a time.

Which is why I suggest that you reconsider what I believe to be a hasty opinion.

Yours, Piotr Krasnowolski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkrasnowolski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pkrasnowolski,

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, we are happy when new contributors like you search out new content and submit them through AFC for review. I understand that the article writing process can be frustrating and I'm happy to offer whatever help you may require to help bring your article up to Wikipedia's standard.

You are concerned that my assessment of your submission was hasty based on the rationale displayed for rejecting your article "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject."

I would like to clarify that the rationale is simply a guide to help you make improvements and is not necessarily a complete reflection of the issues found in your article. In fact what you are referring to is a template that is selected for articles whose voice is not structured in the manner characteristic of good Wikipedia articles. You will notice that, in addition to selecting a template response, I also left more personalized comment about your article for you to take into consideration. It is this comment that better reflects my true assessment of the article - that it is written like a CV and that the sentence structure needs improving. The article reads more like a list of accomplishments. "During the martial law in Poland (1981–1983), sentenced to 6 months of incarceration for active involvement in underground anti-Communist youth resistance movement." may better be render "During the martial law in Poland (1981-1983) he was' sentenced to six months of incarceration for his involvement in the anti-Communist youth resistance movement". You indicate that you've copied the format used in the Polish encyclopedia. Please understand that the various Wikis have different procedures and, in any case, the manner in which language is structured varies from language to language.

To suggest that I was hasty in making an assessment is an affront. Wikipedia spins on the wheels of collaboration and thus you should be willing to accept constructive criticism. You do admit that there are possible improvements that can be made to the article. Make those improvements and then resubmit the article. I'll be glad to review again once you've done your part. Gratefully yours, EagerToddler39 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39. I've noticed lately that you seem to be adding in a lot of links to commercial sites. Unfortunately, these are not reliable sources - they seem to be sales-oriented sites, and as such are generally a poor source. This is especially the case with articles related to medical topics, as WP:MEDRS requires very high quality sources for health related articles. While much of what you do is great, I'd just like to encourage you to focus a bit more on more reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby. First of all, sorry for the delayed response. I was a bit occupied throughout the week and though I saw your message a few days ago I only now got a chance to read through it and then, of course, search for the edits to which your comment refers. Thanks for the heads-up on the links inserted. Your comments have been noted. I'll make sure to be more vigilant with the type of sources I add. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39. Thanks for your ideas on the above page. This is my first page and I've tried to take into account your comments and update. Let me know what you think. regards. International ed (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I couldn't help but notice your recent edits to the phobia article, which seem wildly inappropriate, and trying to figure out what is going on, looking over your recent contribs, I find the pattern of editing hard to explain unless you are doing sponsored editing. Is that the case? Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Looie. I find your comments re my edits to the Phobia article highly irregular but I'm interested in the neurological processes that led to your brain arriving at this peculiar conclusion. Lol. Tell me more. I accept that my antiquated views may be somewhat skewed but let's focus on that and not my character, thanks. EagerToddler39 (talk)

I'm not commenting on your character, I simply asked you whether you are editing for hire, and I can't help but notice that you haven't denied it. I'd prefer to discuss the phobia article at talk:phobia, where I have added a section expressing my concerns. Looie496 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted those edits. Let me caution you against doing anything like this again. If I see another instance of inappropriate material added to an article on a topic you haven't previously shown any interest in, I will ask for your account to be blocked from editing. I am not absolutely opposed to paid editing, but it has to be done in a way that improves articles, not damages them. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comments are rude and out of place. Don't make unfounded accusations based on your cursory assessment of my editing history on this or any other article. Since the Phobia article was created you have been involved in the main article with this username only five times and on those occasions all you've done were to revert vandalism on four occasions and an edit with which you disagreed on another occasion. Your only other involvement was non-substantial on the talk page. Check my edit history again to see how I've been involved in this or related articles. Pick any instance of inappropriate editing and feel free to revert them all. I agree that the edits were contrary to commonly held views but to label them as inappropriate is overstepping your bounds. Furthermore you've threatened to block my account based on your arbitrary conclusion that I am being paid to edit an article. I was paid $0.00 to make those last edits. How much did were you paid reverting them? Your attitude is harassing and unbecoming. Since you claim defacto ownership of the Phobia article I will make no further attempts to edit it or any other article which you hold so closely to your bosom. Otherwise I would appreciate a lot more civility. Thank you and happy reverting! EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving a direct answer finally -- I accept your statement that you weren't paid to edit that article. I've been maintaining Wikipedia's whole body of neuroscience-related articles for about 5 years; that's where my interest comes from. An editor with your experience should be aware that "contrary to commonly held views" automatically implies "inappropriate", unless the contradiction of commonly held views is made clear -- see WP:FRINGE. Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you too for finally giving a civil response rather than making attempts to scare me away from editing. As far as possible I'll make every attempt to stay away from neuroscience-related articles. If you noticing me treading in unwelcomed waters again in the future please feel free to give me a civil nudge as a reminder. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating John P. Beech, EagerToddler39!

Wikipedia editor Matty.007 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good

To reply, leave a comment on Matty.007's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing Paul Fix (racing driver); a lovely article :). Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, based on your article creations, I'm going to give you the "autopatrolled" user right. Thanks for your contributions thus far - may they continue far into the future! Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you marked multiple Articles for Creation submissions as reviewed several hours ago, and haven't done anything with them since. This keeps it out of the queue and nobody else will be able to review it themselves. I've unmarked them all for now. If there was a reason you did this, let me know. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jackmcbarn. I marked the articles as "Being Reviewed" because I'm taking a thorough look at each of them and would edit them with my decision in a few. It's usually easier for me to go through AfCs that way. I pick a ser number of articles, check their sources, content etc and then edit them later with my decision to keep or discard. I know it keeps them out of the queue, that's the point. It avoids someone reviewing the article while I'm also checking into them which would confuse my efforts significantly. As far as I know there is no real time-restriction on how long I could keep them under review. I usually aim for between a few hours to a day. I guess this means I'll have to start over again, checking if someone else has already reviewed the articles I had in my queue. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that there's no rule as to how long an article is marked for review for, but several hours of no activity, especially over multiple articles, would probably be considered to be too long in most cases. The one suggestion I have is that you only review one article at a time. That way, you wouldn't hold up submissions that you're not actively looking at. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice but it's how I've usually handled AFCs before with no issue. And not because I don't respond to the AFCs right away doesn't mean that I'm not working on them. I create my comments offline, after reviewing the articles so that I can work faster with them in bulk. The template does indicate that the review could take several hours to a week. In any case from the AFCs I previously marked noone has reviewed them since you unmarked them so I'm back at it. There are hundreds of AFCs to review and I'm helping, not holding up the process. If you wish to review any that I mark as being reviewed you could contact me via my talk page and I'll gratefully oblige you. Thanks again and happy editing. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eager!

Just wanted to stop in and say thank you for reviewing my article and to let you know I have made some changes to follow the some of the style guidelines. I also removed some of the stuff I could tell sounded promotional and rewrote some paragraphs to fix some of my personal errors (my grammar made a couple of sentences factually incorrect). I beefed up the opening paragraph as well to establish note-ability as well. Also, I just wanted to let you know any "self published" sources like the article she wrote and the links to companies she owns are just to verify she does own the businesses and that she was a reporter/editor.

The reason why there is an emphasis on her being the first "openly-lesbian" school board president in Michigan is because many of those articles from the Detroit Free Press and local newspapers in the area are specifically about her being a lesbian and attacking her for it. Many national organizations came to her defense and a small article was written about her re-election and the overturning of the policy to protect homosexuals in the Advocate magazine (the most prominent magazine for homosexuals - this is cited in the article). While society today is more accepting and many athletes, pubic figures, etc. are being recognized and applauded for coming out, the mid-90's was less accepting to her lifestyle.

I also think that is important to mention because Wikipedia has List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United States.

Let me know if that is what you were looking for!

Adamzien (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Daniel A. Dorsey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lancaster

George N. Bliss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Waynesboro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to insert the required citations but probably failed on the tech side. However, your comment as to my article not indicating why and how A. C. de Freitas & Co. was notable is clearly subjective. People interested in the history of trade and shipping would not agree. Bilgola (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilgola and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I notice your efforts to improve the article by inserting inline citations. I made a comment about your article with which you've taken issue. I indicated that the article " does not indicate why and how A. C. de Freitas & Co. was notable". Please understand that I am referring to how the Wikipedia article is written and the breath of the information it contains. The company has not been presented in such a way for readers to understand that it is notable. I am in no way suggesting that the company is not notable but rather that you establish from the first paragraph of the article the notability of the company. Observe that another editor has marked 'remarkable' as a peacock term. 'Extensive' also falls within this category. Please edit out this type of subjective language as well. I'd be happy to work with you in further developing your article or making required improvements. Just indicate whether or not you need this assistance. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EagerToddler39, thanks for trying to help. I have resubmitted but I didn't get anywhere with the image, actually losing all my changes to the text in the process and having to do it again. I am not going to try again. So please remove the reference to the image or whatever if the text now is acceptable. Considering the few lines produced I have spent an inordinate number of hours on this. As to books available as mentoned by Matthew: yes there are many on shipping. However few have anything worthwhile to say about A. C. de Freitas & Co and none I know of in English. The book quoted most by me (A. C. de Freitas & Co. - Kaufmannsreeder)is the ONLY comprehensive history on the company. It is based mostly on still existing documents and contempory newsarticles and relies little on other books and then mostly for historical context. Hoping this will settle it.Bilgola (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across Lucibel which you created recently. This article has been on my watchlist since I spotted a paid-editing request to create it a few weeks ago on elance. Were you commissioned to write this article? ThemFromSpace 15:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also see a correlation between LingQ and this page, as well as Conductive wireless charging and this page. All three projects were awarded to the same elance account. ThemFromSpace 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply