User talk:Swalgal
Battle of Groix
[edit]The results of the battle list several hundred casualties, hence the revision. V. Joe (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 23:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
[edit]Hello, you seem to want to revert me simply because I reverted your vandalism and warned you. This isn't a valid reason for reversion. You are welcome to make constructive edits, but it appears that your reversions are simply out of vengeance in some sense. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if I took it to be personal if it wasn't. I am removing information because it's excess information for the regions involved; for example, consider that we could probably find dozens of other areas that were affected as much as some of these small areas, and also find more specific information (which is the only piece I removed that I reverted) on the areas already listed. If we add all of that in, that section becomes excessively large. I'm basically trying to give ALL of the areas that we do list equal weight, rather than having certain areas burdened down with excess information that other areas don't (but could) have. I hope you can understand my viewpoint here. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I edited your changes again, and thought I should point out the reasons rather than possibly have you just revert them again. First, your references say nothing about a boating ban or stranded residents (just that boaters should remain vigilant), so that was a legitimate reason alone to remove it. The information is also just too local and too trivial. Consider its due weight compared to what's presented about other areas. Second, I noticed the CBC reference actually states that the tsunami watch was issued by the same US center that does the rest of the West Coast, and also included most of the Alaskan coast, Washington state, as well as all coastal parts of BC (not just parts of Vancouver Island, unless that is all of the coast, but that detail isn't needed either way), so instead of mentioning BC separately, I instead included in the information about the watch issued since the Alaska/Washington information hadn't been in there. Since other information is included that way, it seemed better, and keep in mind that I'm expanding what areas are being covered by editing it the way I did; I did keep the mention of wave heights that were observed around Vancouver Island, hope that's enough local detail for you. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 11:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Operation Tunisia for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Tunisia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.