User talk:***Ria777

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, ***Ria777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DS 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello ***Ria777! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Edit Summary Request[edit]

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why still no edit summaries? Kukini 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'cause I forget to do 'em! (and you just forgot to sign.... Do it and then delete this.)

I'd like to second the request that you use an edit summary. You're often removing categories and recategorizing articles with no explanation. This is poor form and as stated above can appear questionable to other editors.--Crossmr 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a third request that you use an edit summary. In your last 100 edits since the last request for you to make an edit summary you've made 1.--Crossmr 14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can set your Preferences to help you. Find the Editing tag and check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary." -- Fyslee 10:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

I happened to notice your contributions to the area of Occult. If you'd like, please check out WikiProject Occult if you are inerested in helping out. Thanks! SynergeticMaggot 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in re: Bisexual Erasure[edit]

noticed that you removed Bigotry and Prejudice from the "also see" list. Not saying at all that this isn't a good edit. Just wondering on your reasoning there. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of reasons.

one, the link to "sexual hierarchy" entry made those somewhat redundant.

two, links to the bigotry and prejudice links imply some sort of active policy and a quite possibly malicious one at that. remember, neutral point of view. for the record, I agree with your stance on bisexual erasure as common. for that matter, I think that the long history and prevalence of consensual incest also gets conveniently ignored.

-- Ria

Minor edits[edit]

Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb, is that an edit of a page that consists of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. --Crossmr 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. The next time you vandalize a page (Star of Bethlehem) , you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --

Stop making gibberish edit summaries[edit]

When you were asked by more than one user to use edit summaries is wasn't because they wanted to see random characters in the edit summaries. They want to see what your edits actually are. When making comments on talk pages its unnecessary, but when making edits to articles, catagories, or making other changes to talk pages (like adding signatures, formatting, etc) you should be using edit summaries that actually describe the edits you're making. In your last 75 edits you've only made about 15 edit summaries that actuall describe the edit you're making the rest are gibberish or blank edit summaries. Please actually describe what you're doing, and why if you've haven't explained it elsewhere. You've been making numerous and extensive catagory changes to a lot of articles with little or no explanation. I'm not saying thats bad, but 90% of the time no one has any idea what edits you're making or why.--Crossmr 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to second Crossmr's request. Even if everything you're doing is perfectly logical to you, it needs to be explained when you are making changes like this which tend to have a highly technical nature. I'm glad you want to help Wikipedia better organize its articles, but please do try to use real edit summaries. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were doing a decent job for a while, but then you slid back into the pattern. Please try to understand how much more work it is for other editors to have to decipher what you have done to articles. I hate to block a user who is making generally constructive edits, but I'm not sure I have an alternative; the time you waste from other people may or may not be as much as the time you are saving with these recategorizations. Please, please, consistently provide explanations for technical edits. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what does "technical edit" mean? versus a normal/regular edit?***Ria777 02:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinauri[edit]

You put Hinauri into the category 'Māori goddesses'. I appreciate your help, because I was going to create such categories once the articles had all been verified, but Hinauri is not a goddess, so I reverted your change. Kahuroa 10:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first, I know everything and never makes an error, so you had no right to do this, at all.

second, I do try to verify such stuff before I make such judgment calls based on what the entries day. (perhaps I should research the topics first, but I admit that I sacrifice accuracy for my desire to put an entry somewhere, sometimes, though not intentionally. on more than one occasion I have felt tempted to put an entry in a category and then thought that I should really know more about the subject before I make such a judgment call. in fact I looked about figures specifically described as goddesses in order to make up a Māori goddesses cat., so it would exist and people could then say, hey, this cat. should have more entries.) anyway, I will keep this in mind. (BTW, I do know that a category can exist with no entries.) ***Ria777 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN and read it very carefully. You don't own any articles or edits you make to an article. Any editor can change anything they want at any time if there is a just reason for doing so. So they had plenty of "right" to make this change.--Crossmr 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that ironically! ***Ria777 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

AfD nomination of Changelings in popular culture[edit]

Changelings in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Changelings in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changelings in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Changelings in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional herbs[edit]

Category:Fictional herbs has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Early scientific cosmologies[edit]

I have nominated Category:Early scientific cosmologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:UFO-related entities[edit]

I have nominated Category:UFO-related entities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:UFO-related phenomena[edit]

I have nominated Category:UFO-related phenomena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tibetan Volunteers for Animals[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Tibetan Volunteers for Animals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Splittist (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Metabarons Roleplaying Game for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Metabarons Roleplaying Game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Metabarons Roleplaying Game 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 until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Earth mysteries has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Earth mysteries has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]