User talk:Fuhvah

• Please see the technique for in-line refs in Holocaust denial. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ship's cat

Nice job of simplifying and wikifying this article from Enwiki. One small thing was omitted, the Transwiki attribution (giving credit to the editors who originally created this article). I placed it on the article's talk page for you. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Named references

Hi Fuhvah,
Did you understand what I was doing in the article Americans with Disabilities Act? I was removing duplicate source citations and combining them by using named references. If you're not familiar with named refs they're explained at w: WP:REFNAME. I apologize if you already knew this but I just saw three more of the same reference (#s 24, 25, & 26) which I then combined into one reference #24 (^{24.0, 24.1, 24.2}) in the References section. Nice work on the article by the way. If you have any questions, just ask. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(message moved here to keep the conversation together)

Hi, thanks for your message. No, I did not understand what you were doing with combining references, and when some showed up the other day I thought I had screwed something up so I deleted them, sorry. I looked at the instructions page you linked to, and get the basics of how to do named refs, but are we supposed to do this every time we use the same reference more than once or only when we have more than one consecutive reference from the same source? Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually think I understand named refs now. Thanks for the FYI. Fuhvah (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Fuvah: We had an edit conflict. I'll add the reply anyway in case there's something here you can use:

It keeps a longer list from getting too long with duplicate source citations. So it is highly recommended. For example, if the citation was

<ref>John Smith, ''Politics'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 212</ref>

and you needed to use it multiple times, you would insert a reference name into the citation:

<ref name=Smith212>John Smith, Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 212</ref>

and use it for the first instance of this citation. Then, in all other instances you would simply use:

<ref name=Smith212/> (note the addition of the forward slash—if you get an error message its probably because the slash was overlooked).

The rules for the name (following the = sign) are: no spaces in the name but underscores ( _ ) are OK, if any symbols are used then the name must be inside quotation marks (" "), if only letters and numbers are used then no quotation marks are necessary. So name=Smith12 does not require quote marks but name=A&E would (because of the ampersand & character), hence name="A&E". What you do not want to do is to name the same reference twice. First instance is the named reference with the complete citation. All other instances are the short refname only. Explaining it seems to be harder than just doing it. If you have any questions, please ask. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I've seen reference names with spaces. They have to be in quotes. If it makes it easier, it doesn't hurt to always use quotes, even where they're not required. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

About moving pages

Hi, I have fixed your cut-and-paste redirect. In future, if you want to rename an article, please use the move feature. It can be found at the top of the page, on the "move" tab. Chenzw  Talk  14:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you. Fuhvah (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest articles

Hi Fuhvah,
I wanted to mention a couple of things I noticed when patrolling your new pages. First, we use a couple of different section names here than at other wikis. 'Related pages' shows links to other Simplewiki articles that are related to the subject. 'Other websites' (usually after the References section) is used in preference to 'See also'. These are from Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I noticed that after I patrolled the latest article you changed the {{reflist}} template back to <references />. The template has an advantage over the wiki markup because any changes to articles using a reflist template will change all of them at the same time. Any using the wiki markup will not change. I don't know what the likelihood of changing the reference list is but that's how I learned it. By the way, nice articles! Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Clarification: We use "Related pages" instead of enwiki's "See also". We use "Other websites" instead of enwiki's "External links". --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully the link would have corrected my error. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both. I think I've fixed this on all my recent pages. Thanks again. Fuhvah (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Apgar score

Hey there. This article is really well done. Even I understand it. Great work! Osiris (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Awww. Thank you!!! Fuhvah (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor note

Hi, Fuhvah. I was just looking at your changes to Lobotomy. You probably didn't know, but when you add a link to a plural word when the article title is singular, the preferred form is like this: [[hallucination]]s instead of using a piped link. It's just simpler that way, and a person looking at the code doesn't have to check whether the text is different on each side of the pipe. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I actually added wikilinks to that page using the "Change" feature rather than "Change source." In "Change" mode I believe it pipes the links automatically (i.e. when I tried to link "hallucinations," the only option that came up was "hallucination" so I had to choose that; I think it may have piped the link automatically in the actual code?) I'm not sure if there's a way to fix that other than then going into Change Source mode and checking all the links manually?

Ah, so you use the visual editor? I wonder why they set it up to work like that. I disabled it for my account because I'm so used to the markup. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Middle Passage

Nice article! I noticed the red link for Slave ship and created a quick stub for it (hate to see red links in the opening statement). I found a couple of sources and some statistics you may want to use in the Middle Passage article. You could also click on the links to the source web pages to see if there's anything else you might want to use. I'll leave it to you. Also, feel free to improve Slave ship if you have any ideas. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture captions

It's not necessary to center captions on images. Please don't make a practice of doing that all the time. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Intravenous

Hi, Fuhvah. I just wanted to mention, in case you didn't see, that I moved the article Intravenous that you created to Intravenous therapy. The reason is that adjectives aren't good article titles. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I couldn't think of a title that would encompass both medical IV use and IV drug use. Thanks for changing the redirects too. Can you just tell me how you renamed the page? I've only ever figured out how to do that by creating a new page, pasting in the content and creating a redirect on the old page, and when I did that, I got a message saying it shouldn't be done that way. Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I did it by moving the page. That keeps the page history with the new page, which doesn't happen with the way you describe. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. Fuhvah (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Constitutional articles

Hi Fuhvah. I see you have been working on a few constitutional articles lately. Just today you added the {{US Constitution article series}} template to United States Constitution. In that template you'll notice that a number of articles to the constitution, the preamble, a few remaining amendments and related subjects, include many we don't have yet. Would you have any interest in bringing some of these articles over from Enwiki, simplifying, wikifying and adding source citations as necessary? Alternatively, they can be created from scratch. I'm working on it but any help would be welcome. I am particularly concerned with the remaining articles (two through seven) of the Constitution. If you are interested, please let me know. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can give that a shot, though I am much more familiar with the amendments than the articles. But let me give it a go. By the way, I meant to thank you for doing the article on the 15th Amendment. I did an article on the Civil Rights Movement and noticed that link was red. I thought I'd have to write the article, then magically the next day the link was blue!  :) Fuhvah (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have created a page for Article 7 and am working on Article 6 now (I started in reverse order in case you were working from Article 1 up). Whenever you get a chance, if you want to check it out and tell me what you think, if this was the type of help you were looking for, feel free to drop me a line. Thanks Fuhvah (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  That's fine with me. I can take a look when you finish. I was going to say: If you prefer take on some of the amendments (or the proposed amendments), go ahead. I just finished the 19th Amendment and was working my way up. There are six left. I prefer them myself over the Articles but they all need to get done. I need to go back and finish Article one. I was just taking a break and did a couple of amendment articles. Then there are landmark cases which are usually pretty interesting. Jump in anywhere. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at Article Six. It looks good. Much better referenced than the Enwiki version. One thing, if you copied and pasted from Enwiki, even if you changed it you still need to add attribution. If this is put together from scratch, then there is no need. Just thought to mention it. Looks like you're really cooking on these. I need to get back to Article one and finish it so I can move up the articles. Thanks again. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on the Enwiki attribution, I knew I had forgotten something on those pages. Looks like we had an edit conflict for the page on the Preamble. I probably spent a lot more time on it than I should have! I will start with Article 5 now Fuhvah (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If you had anything to add, I hope you'll still add it. Edit conflicts happen (GMTA). Whenever I am on the short end of one, I save my changes in Notepad, save the page, then read everything to see if I still want to add anything from my change. Just shoot me—I forgot to add attribution for Preamble to the United States Constitution until now. The Preamble and several supporting articles are just a diversion from finishing the very long Article One. I'll get back on it and see if I can progress up the Articles from there. Thanks again for helping with these. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I gave a shot to combining our two articles on the Preamble. I kept all of your info and then added mine below. If you think it's too long we can revert it. Also finished Article 2 today ... what an odyssey :) Fuhvah (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't have any need to revert it; it's good work. I only have a few relatively minor problems that should be easy to fix if we both agree. There are a few duplications. I see one problem in mentioning the Gettysburg Address—the four score and seven years is a reference to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. This is about the Constitution, ten years and two governments after the Declaration. Lastly, we should not have two citation styles in the article. In the Constitution Articles you created, your choice of citation style should stand because you were the article creator and also (since they were not stubs and are well sourced) the first major contributor. I put a revised copy of this in a sandbox, User:Rus793/Article titles where I consolidate both versions. I deleted (or actually hid for now) the original Summary section and deferred to your layout. I shortened it a little and changed a couple of sections to keep them consistent. I also edited the citations to fit the original style. Let me know what you think. If this is OK with you, I can copy it to the article and any minor changes can take place there. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it. I think the two versions are integrated nicely, and it's a good length. I'm fine with every change you made. I definitely support going forward with this version if you agree. FYI, I was just going to start on Article Three. Onward!! Fuhvah (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll make the change. When I tackled Article one, I didn't realize the amount of work it needed. That's one reason why I'm still there. I'll try to finish so I can help with the rest. BTW, while waiting to see what you thought of the changes I knocked out Constitutional Convention (United States) (one more link in the Constitutional Article Series). Thanks again. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Finishing the series

Hi Fuhvah: So we don't knock heads again did you want to do Article III next or Article IV? I can keep busy with other links in the Constitution Series until you get a chance to let me know. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on Article Three right now Fuhvah (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That answers the question. I'll do Article IV. You mentioned Amendments to the Constitution; after finishing the Articles did you want to divvy up the remaining amendments? User:Rus793 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I had to research Amendments 21 and 25 for the other pages I did so I would be happy to do them if you have no preference, but if you have a preference we can split them up any way you want. I'll work on other stuff for a bit till I hear back from you. Fuhvah (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I will go ahead and start Amendment 25, hopefully that's ok.Fuhvah (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked earlier and not seeing a reply yet I went ahead with the Twenty-First Amendment. So it worked out just fine. I have no preferences beyond that one, so you taking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment works out nicely. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If you'd like to do the 26th and 27th Amendments, go right ahead. I'll start on proposed amendments. If not, let me know. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. BTW, I noticed a couple of things that I don't know how to fix - maybe you do. On the bottom of the "U.S. Constitution series" template, where there are links to the full text of the Constitution and such, those link to empty pages on Wikisource. Also, I've been trying to make the "landmark court cases" page more readable. Is it possible to double-space bulleted lists? I've tried various things from the Help pages and none seem to work. Just thought I'd mention those things in case you had any ideas. Fuhvah (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the List of landmark court decisions in the United States, it's already a long article and there are still the sections First Amendment Rights, Second Amendment rights and Other areas to bring over. So when those sections are added, it may double in size. I brought over what I did to work on here and add source citations. Then I thought I'd try to do as many as possible before bringing over the rest. User:Lithorien wanted to work on them as well. If it was double-spaced, the full article could take on an unprecedented size. We could break it into several articles (and may still), but even so, the extra half-space added by the bullet ( * ) is considered space enough by most editors. I think double spacing it would get changed back to bullet spacing at some point. Adding "white space" to articles at Enwiki has caused some disagreements in the past—but then this isn't Enwiki. I'll look into other possible solutions if you still want to add more spacing. Other options might include breaking the list down into smaller sections.

I was working down the list and hadn't caught the Wikisource links were to blank pages. But yes, it seems to be a problem. There are two things we (either or both of us) could do. The first is to edit the pages at Wikisource and add the information. Checking "what links here" (at Wikisource) shows few if any pages are using them. Secondly, we can create the articles on Simplewiki. There is a third option—simply do nothing and wait to see if an editor or editors there create them. They are a form of red link (although they show in blue in Simplewiki articles) so probably (like Wiktionary) it goes on a list of needed articles. I wouldn't mind option #2, create them here. What do you think? User:Rus793 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with creating them here. I've never used Wikisource, so I'm more comfortable with Simplewiki anyway. I see what you mean about the landmark court cases page. Probably it makes sense to finish bringing over everything that needs to be brought over and see how long that makes it before thinking about formatting anyway. No rush. It does make sense to go in order. Sorry for the delay in responding today, I had a computer catastrophe, which is hopefully done now. Fuhvah (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't used Wikisource before either. I did some reading there and discovered it works differently than this wiki. For one thing it has subdomains. When the link to the Wikisource article is called from Enwiki, you get the Constitution articles. The same link from this wiki gets what you pointed out—blank pages. I read all the help files and could not figure out how to connect to the English subdomain from here. So, when all else fails, experiment! By trial and error I stumbled on the answer and the links work now. I'd like to finish up with the Constitution articles, then go back to the landmark cases. But I'd like to whittle down the red links and add source citations from the linked articles before bringing over more—if that's OK with you. We can avoid edit conflicts if we agree ahead of time on what sections we'd prefer to work in. BTW, I can't tell you how good it looks to see all the amendment articles completed. Thanks again. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It does look great to see all blue links in the Articles and Amendments sections of the Constitution template! From some of the page histories it looks like you have been working on this for a long time. I'm fine with everything you've suggested. Since you had talked about doing the proposed amendments, I can start on Federalism in the US. Let me know if you want a break from the proposed amendments. Fuhvah (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead with the proposed amendments then. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I accidentally mixed up and did Republicanism in the US, not Federalism in the US. I can do Federalism, but regardless, it looks like you are done with the proposed amendments. Did you say that next you wanted to address red links and citations on the landmark cases page? What's your pleasure? Fuhvah (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It looks great to see all the red links gone. There is still some things to do in various amendments, but we're now in good shape with the Constitutional articles. Yes, I did want to work on landmark cases. I could start at the top, the Discrimination based on race or ethnicity section. But as one can affect others and use some of the same sources, I may skip around a bit. There is another way but it's messier. See Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History. This is a list of the more significant cases and we could each work on individual cases we'd like to do. If you have a favorite area to work in, just let me know. As I mentioned above, Lithorien expressed an interest in working on landmark cases and may be doing so already. I can mention we're both working on them. There are so many that it's unlikely there would be many edit conflicts even with three editors. Let me know what you'd like to do. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Awwww, thanks for the barnstar!!! I'm fine with you starting at the top and skipping around. I can start in the "End of Life" section. I had to research that subject for a job so I have some good citations and such. If that gets too depressing and I need a break I might do the Gideon case, if that sounds ok and no one has started it yet (it's way in the middle of the page). BTW, I added sections and pictures to the List of landmark court decisions in the United States section just to see if it would make it more readable, but you are welcome to revert them if you want. I looked at the history of the page to see if Lithorien is working on anything to avoid edit conflicts (he isn't yet)... but didn't realize that you had created that page and been the only one working on it... didn't mean to step on your toes. I looked at the Enwiki version and it does look a lot more readable without so many red links. Overall, I'm willing to work in any section on this page, but am more interested in the cases about rights and less interested in the cases about federal powers, but that's not crucial. Fuhvah (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The improvements to the list article look fine. After conversations with Lithorien I brought the page over to have a list to work from. Otherwise it was just hit or miss. By all means, work on any area you're comfortable with. It's a big list and the likelihood of edit conflicts is small. If and when there is a conflict, there should be no problem. Some articles I've worked on had so many edit conflicts it felt like painting white lines on the freeway during rush hour. Anyway, we can touch base every now and then as the need arises. Again, I appreciate all your hard work on the Articles and Amendments. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		For your work on the Articles of the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution. Thank you User:Rus793 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

List of landmark court decisions in the United States

Just to update you, I heard from Lithorien this morning and he'll be back and working on the articles by mid-April. So for now it's the two of us. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI: transwikied template

Hi Fuhvah. Just a heads-up. I brought over the Template:SCOTUSCase which is used in most of the Landmark case articles at Enwiki. So if you want, you can add the template information to articles you may have copied, pasted and simplified here. Lithorien prefers to create these articles from scratch (I will also in some cases) which means additional research to find the information necessary for the template. But in those cases where it is already filled out at enwiki, just copying the template information would solve the problem, for me at least. We'll have to ask Lithorien when he returns, what his thoughts on this are. If for some reason you prefer not to use the infobox from these articles, please let me know. It would make some sense for the Landmark articles to uniformly use or not use this template. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, awesome. I've been wishing we had that template here. Thanks for the FYI. I've created most of the articles I've done basically from scratch because the Enwiki articles were so meager. But I'll go ahead and add those templates when I finish the article I'm on now. Since it's just the two of us till Lithorien returns, as you said the other day I guess there's very little chance of edit conflicts, so I may skip around a bit more if you don't mind, but can stay away from the top section that you had said you would start working on. Fuhvah (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, edit whichever articles you like. There are probably a couple hundred of these cases with something over a hundred on the List page so far. The chances of edit conflicts, even with three or more editors actively working on them, should be fairly minor. I'm not generally a big fan of infoboxes but these do provide useful information so I'll use them. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I brought over the section on Criminal law. There is a lot there on basic rights and freedoms. You may find several cases you prefer in that area. Just a thought. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rus, just wanted to check in and see how you are feeling about how things are going at List of landmark court decisions in the United States. I feel like I keep getting caught up in research for the legal articles, as many of the Enwiki versions are very short and not cited. Also, since each new article then entails concepts and laws and such that we have no pages for, I'm having trouble keeping articles short and quick since there's a lot of things to explain. I just want to make sure you feel like you are getting enough help! Fuhvah (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good job!

Good job on Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. Well written and simple, the article does a good job of explaining the meat of the court case. :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought I did a lot more work on it than I probably should have, so it's great to get some positive feedback! Thanks for taking the time to leave a message! Fuhvah (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

History of <state> categories

Hi, Fuhvah. I noticed that you added a lot of categories to articles for history of individual US states. Please don't add redlinked categories like that unless you're about to create the categories (like within a few minutes). And, of course, each category wohkd need at least three entries before being created. I have removed a lot of the ones you added.

The other comment I have is that if you're adding a lot of different individual state history categories, it's probably better to just add the US history category.

Thanks, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason, from the Help contents it sounded like adding categories to pages WAS the process of creating them, sorry about that. For whatever reason I thought an admin had to approve them. Sorry. So, for example, if there are at least 3 articles about Alaska, I can add the category "History of Alaska" to those articles and then create the category within a few minutes... but you are saying that for an individual article, if it applies to many different states, just add the "History of the US" category to that article? Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes to all of that, and admins do not have to approve categories. When you do create a category, be sure to categorize that category itself. I just created a couple of history-of-state categories that had enough entries, so you can see those for examples.

One other caveat: when creating anything about the state of Georgia, make sure to specify that it's the state. If there's no qualifier, it's considered to be for the country. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As soon as I saved this I thought of another question. I added an article called Brown v. Board of Education II the other day and a redlinked category called "Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles" appeared at the bottom. Do you know what that means or why it is there? Thanks again. Fuhvah (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're better off just organizing what you're doing. For instance, check to see how many articles we have that need the category, create the category, and then add it to the page. Categories shouldn't be added unless it exists, but inside the article, you can place the brackets around a word or term you believe should have an article created, leaving it red to prompt others to create said article. Synergy 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That category is being added by the infobox template. I can't research it further right now, but I will later if no one else gets to it first. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Brown v. Board of Education

Back in March, you added a {{refimprove}} tag to the top of Brown v. Board of Education. I'm wondering if you would consider using the {{cn}} tag instead on specific things you feel need additional citations. The article has more good references than many here, and I'm concerned the large tag at the top suggests the references are somehow not valid or not strong enough to support the facts of the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I went ahead and removed the tag because eight references is certainly more than the average here. However, I did add a couple more and at the same time made some minor edits. As an alternative to the {{cn}} tag, since you already have added good source citations to this article, perhaps you could add more where you see the need. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Bielski partisans

Hi, Fuhvah. Thanks for creating an article like this, where you don't shorten it down to only a paragraph or two. We get too many transwikied articles with too much removed from them.

I did want to remind you that this wiki uses some different standard headings from English Wikipedia. We use "Related pages" instead of "See also". We use "Other websites" instead of "External links". I didn't change these in the article because I wasn't sure if you're through working on the article.

One other thing: I noticed that the syntax of the {{based on}} template (on the talk page) wasn't quite right. (It's easy to confuse that template with {{enwp based}}, which does take the full URL of the original article.) I fixed it, so you can look to see what I changed.

If you have any questions, let me know, and thanks again! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Auntof6... I've been away so long I forgot about the different headings! Thanks for catching that. And thanks for fixing the template on the talk page... I will be sure to check that out and use the right one next time. Thanks again. Fuhvah

RfD nomination of List of people on the autistic spectrum

An editor has requested deletion of List of people on the autistic spectrum, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/List of people on the autistic spectrum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Sobibor extermination camp

The page you wrote, Sobibor extermination camp, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. MathXplore (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Nazi concentration camp badges

The page you wrote, Nazi concentration camp badges, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. MathXplore (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Holocaust victims

An editor has requested deletion of Holocaust victims, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Holocaust victims and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)