User talk:Dyolf87

Edit comments

Hi, I saw you made a series of edits to Cirth. However, you omitted to explain any of them with edit comments. Even a brief remark like "rm stray punctuation" would be helpful to other editors, and is a common practice here. It'd be much appreciated if you could comment your edits in future. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a mistake I keep making! I keep forgetting to add comments, but I'm getting better. — Dyolf87 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources and formatting

Please see WP:RS and MOS:SMALL. Please let me know if you have any questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, in the interests of not having an edit war (and strictly speaking, we made four reverts--which were two reverts each), can we please discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article? I don't see any value in going back and forth like this. Have you read WP:RS or MOS:SMALL? I think that would be a good start. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I also self-reverted just now to reinclude your suggested source and posted to a noticeboard. Let's collaborate to make the encyclopedia better: sound good? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

First, please refrain from calling good-faith edits you disagree with "vandalism". That's not going to win you any arguments.

Second, based on your reverts at Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secrets and The Early Years 1965–1972, you don't seem to understand that everything in Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. That is why I removed large portions of the Saucerful article. Popcornfud (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced information

It seems like you are still adding information without a source. Why are you doing this? Have you seen WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR? I'm confused here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Floydthunder2020.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Floydthunder2020.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Floydthunder2020.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Floydthunder2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)