12voltlighting

Welcome!

Hello, 12voltlighting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Automotive lighting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• depending on jurisdiction. In the U.S. it is a violation of the D.O.T. Department of Transportation) Uniform Vehicle Code for any non-emergency vehicle (Police/Fire/Ambulance) to operate forward

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

12voltlighting, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi 12voltlighting! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Elasmobranchii

Hello. Thanks for trying to improve the article on Elasmobranchii. However I feel there are a number of problems with your edits so I've removed most of them for now. You are welcome to make further edits to the article but please bear these concerns in mind. If you're still active and would like to discuss this further with me you can do so here or on my talk page. If you'd like to discuss it with others you could do so at the Talk:Elasmobranchii or anywhere else you feel appropriate. I'm aware that I'm also quite new here, so some of my concerns may actually be in error.

So, my concerns were:

• Most of the additions read like large quotes taken from your references. From my understanding of the guidance I've read (such as WP:LONGQUOTE), the amount of quoting seemed excessive.
• Another problem with the way the additions read like large quotes was that they didn't fit into the rest of the article. The references to cyclostomes in particular seemed to come out of nowhere. I suggest some kind of linking sentence describing the relationship between jawless fish, elasmobranchii and bony fish.
• The evolution image seemed fine, it wasn't clear why you removed it.
• The reference to dogfish sharks in the lead seemed odd, given that the taxonomy section is clear that Selachii (as used in the lead) does include dogfish sharks. The sharks (Selachii) page linked to was also clear on this point.
• The identification of dogfish sharks as "Squalus acanthias" seems wrong. The Squalidae (dogfish sharks) page gives the species Squalus acanthias as an example of a dogfish shark, which is not the same thing at all.
• I agree something should be done about the amphistyly/orbitostyly/hyostyly/euhyostyly stuff but I'm not sure it has to be removed. It might be better to move it to a later section. In any case, if you want to delete it you need to delete it cleanly. The edits I've reverted had left the bits on hyostyly and euhyostyly intact, but even less comprehensible without the context. You may also want to look at the shark jaws section of the page on fish jaws which has the same text buried after the gallery.
• Finally, some of your added sections duplicated existing text and I'm not entirely clear which bits you expected to be deleted. It isn't really fair to "leave deletes to others" as you indicated in your edit summary. Why not just make those deletes yourself? Did you know that you can copy a page to your sandbox (see links from WP:SANDBOX) and work on it there before copying it back once it is more polished? (although you might need to be careful if there had been further edits in the meantime)

I hope that makes sense. Don't be downhearted, but please be careful in your editing. TuxLibNit (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)