User talk:27 is the best number/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle for BFB (July 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle for BFB and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Battle for BFB, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 27 is the best number! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nominations

I have just declined two speedy deletion nominations that you made under speedy deletion criterion G7, which is to say "as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion and/or blanked the page". In neither case could I see any evidence that the creator of the page had requested deletion. Making nominations under criteria which obviously don't apply is not only pointless, as it can't possibly achieve anything useful, but it is also harmful, as it causes administrators to check the relevant history, which takes up time which could instead be used for more useful work. Please be careful to avoid doing the same again. JBW (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

And I just declined to Speedy taggings for the same reason. Please stop tagging pages for deletion until you review Criteria for Speedy Deletion and you understand the criteria better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that. 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 21:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please be careful only to use the "minor edit" flag for minor edits which require no review. I don't think this or this are minor edits. The second example introduces ambiguity: does Jupiter lacks a well-defined solid surface like the other giant planets mean that other planets have, or lack, a solid surface? Certes (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS and style

Hi there, regarding this edit. Please note that you don't have to capitalise the first letter of a piped wp:Wikilink. For instance, you changed

• [[gravitation|gravity]] to [[Gravitation|gravity]]
• [[boundary (topology)|boundary]] to [[Boundary (topology)|boundary]]
• [[thermal radiation|the same spectrum]] to [[Thermal radiation|the same spectrum]]
• [[stellar black hole|black holes of stellar mass]] to [[Stellar black hole|black holes of stellar mass]]
• [[galaxy|galaxies]] to [[Galaxy|galaxies]]
• [[binary star|binary systems]] to [[Binary star|binary systems]]
• [[first observation of gravitational waves|announced the first direct detection]] to [[First observation of gravitational waves|announced the first direct detection]].

I have undone this part of your edit.

You also changed

• [[Galactic Center|galactic center]] to [[Galactic Center|galactic centre]],

which is against wp:ENGVAR and wp:RETAIN. On the other hand, there are occurrences of both "center" and "centre". For consistency I changed them all to "centre", except in article and book titles.

I also noticed that you changed

• passive mode "The presence of a black hole can be inferred..." to active mode "Scientists can infer the presence of a black hole...",

which is not encyclopedic and certainly not needed — see MOS:PASSIVE, the note at MOS:YOU. I undid that part of your edit too.

Please note that changing styles generally goes against wp:STYLERET. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
I just partially reverted a similar edit. I would have made a new post on your talk page, but I noticed that this one would have been quite similar. I can only repeat DVdm's points, especially those about WP:RETAIN and MOS:PASSIVE. Renerpho (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Period after question mark in quotes

Hi, regarding my edit, partly undoing your preceding edit, see for instance [1]. More entries with https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=period+after+question+mark+in+quotes . - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC) - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Quotion marks and punctuation revisited

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Black hole. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.

Regarding this edit, I have partly undone it. See MOS:LQ: "If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside." - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bad copy -edit

- DVdm (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: I agree with this. I misread your edit. Standard double quotes are indeed better. My mistake. - DVdm (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad copy-edits

Please be much more careful. See [2]. That is unacceptable. - DVdm (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's another very bad one: [3], creating a link to Cartesian plane plane. - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grammarly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Participants of World War I has been accepted

Participants of World War I, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)