User talk:1a16

Hi 1a16! 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 experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have reverted your edits since we don't link everyday words and terms (such as battle, vine and so on). See WP:Overlinking. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please stop linking common words that are understood by all English speakers. Thomas.W directed you to WP:Overlinking above; read it and follow it, or you're likely to get into trouble for disruptive editing. Deor (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

really, I thought the fact of WP:Overlinking being relevant is less important than the usefulness of the link for understanding the subject of the article, this is with regards part. to the link: hero > Greek hero cult. Perhaps I should just add the link indicated into a See Also section, if that would be permissible. 1a16 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see not all links were reverted, just those falling under 22:25, 6 February 2017 > everyday words and terms. 1a16 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just eavesdropping here - even in an article on heroes from Greek mythology, a link to Greek Hero cult might not always be advisable. Wikilinks MOS recommends that we link the first instance of a term worth linking; but English "hero" also has a commonplace, everyday meaning, much diluted from its Greek original. And that's OK; no need for a premature, out-of-context link to something that will take many, if not most casual readers by surprise. In general, and particularly in introductions (which are best written in summary style) text should employ the principle of "least surprise". It's kinder to readers. Greek hero cult would of course be an excellent, educational and relevant link in the/a section on hero-cult to Achilles (I've not yet checked to see whether such a section exists - and now I've checked, and of course, there is. And naturally, it links to Greek hero cult. This being so, we don't need a "see also" link - these are meant only for topics of interest not already linked in article text). Haploidavey (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see you are still overlinking, for example here in Albert Einstein. How often do you need to be told? Apuldram (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. please read MOS:OVERLINK. Common English words and place names that most English speakers understand should not be bluelinked. The reason is that you only want people to click on bluelinks that will help them understand more about your article. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

America is a thing to understand 1a16 (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the best 1a16 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems that you're continuing linking to common English words even after being repeatedly referred to MOS. Please be aware that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior is considered disruptive and may lead to a block. Eperoton (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

is an UNDERLINK basis 1a16 (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully 1a16 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

which is correct 1a16 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This has nothing to do with linking to dictionary definitions of common English words. Eperoton (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

UNDERLINK supports linking that will help readers understand the article more fully, OVERLINK - common words is superceded by Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at UNDERLINK 1a16 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, OVERLINK is not "superceded" by UNDERLINK. They're both part of MOS. Please read them both carefully. UNDERLINK has nothing to do with linking to dictionary definitions of common English words and it doesn't apply to "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". Eperoton (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created to: Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. 1a16 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Creating User; 1a16/ al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa al-Sham possible defeat March 2017 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Ahmad Musa Jibril has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Too controversial for a blp where the sourcing isn't up to scratch - can be developed in the sandbox. Only one sentence in the Telegraph article. Plus having a WP article kind of promotes this man - fine if he's definitely notable, but I'm not seeing it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm not disagreeing with your rationale in renaming the page, however, what you are doing is called a "cut and paste" move, which screws up the history of the page. In cases like this, you will have to submit a request to have the current redirect (US) to be deleted to make way for a page move. Once the current redirect is deleted, then you can move the title, which will automatically leave a redirect. The code, I believe is G13. Or you could go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and request the page be moved. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I made an additional change just prior to your message arriving with me 1a16 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Whalestate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Dekimasuよ! 00:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A girl. Since you had some involvement with the A girl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on User:1a16/ The problem of morality and the singer Zara Larrson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings unrelated to Wikipedia's goals, and isn't a plausible draft. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 03:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply