User talk:SPQP

Ways to improve Prince Giuseppe Emanuele Ventimiglia

Hi, I'm Boleyn. SPQP, thanks for creating Prince Giuseppe Emanuele Ventimiglia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your references.

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.

Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SPQP! You created a thread called References for translated page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Thanks for contributing to the article Julian Hasler. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the entry and the suggestion. I have added nine books to the inline references and I see you have also been linking the London Gazette yourself. I believe General Hasler to meet the notability criteria for biography as mentions of his name are numerous and wiespread. He is even recorded as the discoverer of a new speacies of gazelle SPQP (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Sicilian Regiment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ithaca and Lissa. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hi SPQP! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Elgin Marbles that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 11:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. SPQP (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Elgin marbles

Hello there

I have edited some of your edits for the following reasons:

1) In some cases the information you added isn't in the cited source.

2) In some cases you are not attributing opinions to the author of those opinions.

3) In some cases you seem to be trying to "prove" a particular opinion rather than describing it from a neutral point of view.

4) In some cases they repeat information already in the article.

Please have a look at my changes. If you object to them, please open a discussion on the Talk page of the article. Please also look at policy on neutral point of view.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catholics in the Conservative Party (October 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tavantius was:

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 promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please fix the tone and replace the primary sources with secondary sources. After that, I'll accept it.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catholics in the Conservative Party and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Tavantius (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SPQP! Having an article draft 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! Tavantius (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catholics in the Conservative Party (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

I think this should rather be a list or category.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catholics in the Conservative Party and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]