| Revision as of 10:30, 1 January 2009 editIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits →Warning: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:50, 1 January 2009 edit undoQuality check (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,525 edits →WarningNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| I'm going to give you a sort of all-encompassing warning. You've been repeatedly warned for improper CSD tagging, improper PRODS and useless drive-by tagging of articles. You blanking the talkpage messages is indicative you have read them, so I'll just say it: please cut it out. You have been around long enough that you should have some element of clue, but that seems sorely lacking. Please take some time over your edits, allow users have a chance to correct themselves and consider whether tagging articles with enough tags to double the article length is really helping the Wiki, especially when some of your 'concerns' could be fixed by you yourself in a matter of ''seconds''. Please take a step back to consider your actions or I ''will'' take this to ]. ] (]) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC) | I'm going to give you a sort of all-encompassing warning. You've been repeatedly warned for improper CSD tagging, improper PRODS and useless drive-by tagging of articles. You blanking the talkpage messages is indicative you have read them, so I'll just say it: please cut it out. You have been around long enough that you should have some element of clue, but that seems sorely lacking. Please take some time over your edits, allow users have a chance to correct themselves and consider whether tagging articles with enough tags to double the article length is really helping the Wiki, especially when some of your 'concerns' could be fixed by you yourself in a matter of ''seconds''. Please take a step back to consider your actions or I ''will'' take this to ]. ] (]) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi, I often patrol ], and give my suggestion to creator of page by pasting tags. so that any other editor may also note it and improve it. Once anyone has improved that article, anyone can delete the appropriate tags. But i cannot wait to return next day, that the article gets modified or not; You cannot predict as some articles gets modified within seconds and some gets edited rarely. Check the preview of your article before Saving it to wikipedia, when you create a new article or otherwise. But you could not say that i have wrongly used any of tags (except tooshort). Also i'm getting mature with each edit. I'll be more careful in future regarding this. You are free to do anything. | |||
| Quality check | |||
Revision as of 10:50, 1 January 2009
Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!
May I make a suggestion?
You might want to try cleaning up some of the articles you tag yourself. At the end of the day you tagging them is not improving the article per se, it is simply bringing it to the attention of others who have to improve it. If you tried wikifying it/referencing it/expanding it yourself it would cut out the middle man (and also be a lot more satisfying to the user than drive-by tagging, trust me on this'n). The backlogs in those sort of areas are massive; try not to increase them where you can possibly avoid it. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Tag crazy
Actually too short is about the lead of longer articles, not about one sentence articles. By putting it in that you will categorize it and make the category huge.
Notice the article says on it that it is a "stub," that's what is used to identify one sentence articles.
As to only one source, did you want me to put a source for every word?
Again, by its nature as a stub, it will probably have only one sentence and one source. Find longer articles with short leads and work on the leads yourself rather than tagging articles that are already supplied with information that they are short and need work, ie, they're stubs.
--KP Botany (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding bio stub to an article, however, is VERY useful. --KP Botany (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, don't tag articles someone is writing right now (The Pubes). Give him a day, then tag it if you need to. Adding a category to that one was easy, though. --KP Botany (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Warning
I'm going to give you a sort of all-encompassing warning. You've been repeatedly warned for improper CSD tagging, improper PRODS and useless drive-by tagging of articles. You blanking the talkpage messages is indicative you have read them, so I'll just say it: please cut it out. You have been around long enough that you should have some element of clue, but that seems sorely lacking. Please take some time over your edits, allow users have a chance to correct themselves and consider whether tagging articles with enough tags to double the article length is really helping the Wiki, especially when some of your 'concerns' could be fixed by you yourself in a matter of seconds. Please take a step back to consider your actions or I will take this to WP:ANI. Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I often patrol recently created articles, and give my suggestion to creator of page by pasting tags. so that any other editor may also note it and improve it. Once anyone has improved that article, anyone can delete the appropriate tags. But i cannot wait to return next day, that the article gets modified or not; You cannot predict as some articles gets modified within seconds and some gets edited rarely. Check the preview of your article before Saving it to wikipedia, when you create a new article or otherwise. But you could not say that i have wrongly used any of tags (except tooshort). Also i'm getting mature with each edit. I'll be more careful in future regarding this. You are free to do anything.
Quality check