Stefano98
I reverted a very large deletion you made in North Carolina. I am not commenting on the quality of the edit, but the quantity was huge, over 12k, and you didn't leave a summary comment, so there was no way to know if it was a mistake or what. Being WP:BOLD is a good thing, but when you make edits that large, please leave at least a summary that explains why, and if it is a large edit like this one, consider adding something in the article talk section so others can understand your rationale (and perhaps agree). Otherwise, we can only guess why the edit was made. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to North Carolina has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with your edit, and from a quick look, agree with much of it. I only reverted the 1st time because I had no idea WHY you did it. That is why it is important to always use summary. As for the second time it was reverted, User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II did that and templated you (normal practice, I did a personal touch). He sees it as unconstructive. I would disagree with his assessment. You should go to his talk page and explain why. I know you are new, but this is common for BIIIG edits like this, with newer editors. It isn't personal, its part of the "better safe than sorry" approach. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I left a message on his talk page, I reverted back to your version in good faith for all parties. He still has the right to revert back and ask for us to talk to him in the talk section of the article. Edits that large are often vandalism or "mistake edits" where someone new accidently deletes a whole section with an edit. You actually did us all a favor. Just so you know, I have found that it is good to 1)always leave a summary for even the smallest edits, and 2) leave a note in the talk section any time I am doing a WP:BOLD edit, just so there is no question about motives, AND because sometimes I find there is a reason why I am wrong about the edit. Keep up the good work. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- One last note: It is customary to always add your comments to the bottom of the page, not the top. This is where everyone will always look after a big edit. It isn't a "rule", but everyone kinda expects it. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- On last last note :) Go check out Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina and consider signing up. It just keeps us all connected and helping each other on NC articles, and it looks like that is one of your goals. No meetings, its mainly about working on that page together. Then you can put this user box on your User page by adding the code {{User WikiProject North Carolina}} if you like:
 | This user participates in WikiProject North Carolina. |
Geography of South Dakota GAR
editHi Stefano - thanks for your promotion of Geography of South Dakota. Not to sound like I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth or something, but would you mind putting a Good Article review on the article's talk page as well? This is usually done, even if an article is passed. For more on this, WP:Reviewing good articles has some tips on how to do this, or you can ask someone about it at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Basically, just put down why you passed it, and maybe some ways in which it could still be improved. There are also templates you can use for this, and you can use a sub-page, as is done here, but neither the sub-page or templates are required. As it is, it just looks a bit odd to have the talk page of an article that has been promoted to GA status that doesn't have any record of that promotion, other than the change to the GA icon. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)