User talk:Vzeebjtf

Glad to see you had uploaded a front page of this newspaper awhile back, I was able to use it in creating an article on this publication.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on an excellent article. I'm impressed by your skillful use of many and varied sources. Nicely done! Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Epicgenius. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pabst Hotel without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't blank all categories from the Pabst Hotel article. Epic Genius (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the categories was an error. Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to WP:OWN this article, it's totally against Wikipedia policy. Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the specific edit I made, there's no need for two images which are taken from about the same angle, show the building at around the same general time period, and in which the building hasn't changed at all. BMK (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of trying to own the article when you have no objective reason to do so. You didn't bother with an edit summary, much less a comment on the talk page, and it isn't my job to read your mind. You're so disrespectful of the work of others, even though you always object to changes others make to your work by saying, "A lot of thought went into it; please respect that." It doesn't occur to you that a lot of thought might have gone into work I did, does it? You didn't bother to look at the two pictures, or read the article, did you? If you had, you'd know the building doubled in size in 1889-90, which significantly changed the outward appearance, especially the Park Avenue side. As a user, a before-and-after view is interesting to me, and I thought it would be interesting to others as well. Don't my thoughts warrant any consideration or discussion? Shouldn't you treat others as you ask them to treat you? Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance, you;ve deleted information from extremely reliable sources. If you want me to take this to the noticeboards, I'll oblige you. You cannot WP:OWN this article, period. BMK (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mount Morris Bank Building. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. BMK (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are reverting me. Vzeebjtf (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, and I was wrong regarding the two photos. The second one does indeed show a double of the building's width. My apologies. BMK (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Sam H. Harris (producer). Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Sam H. Harris (producer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of Sts. Cyril & Methodius and St. Raphael (New York City), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Side Line. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the anchor is the same as the section header, the anchor is not needed. I know that Template:Anchor/doc #2 exists, but isn't needed, though. Adding the note will discourage editors from renaming the section (see MOS:HEAD, but the anchor can be as easily removed as the header can be renamed. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still removing that hidden note on the Essex Street article, where I tell editors to not change the header. You have asked why I am removing it. I am doing so because it is unnecessary, and you haven't given a solid reason for retaining the anchor yourself. Please discuss this, since I am not convinced there is enough editorial activity on that page to justify renaming the section, let alone keeping the anchor there. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anchor is proper. You have not justified changing it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to place headers like =={{anchor|References}} References== and =={{anchor|External links}} External links== when ==References== and ==External links== work just fine (and the anchor doesn't do anything in this case, since adding Essex Street#External links sends the reader to the "External links" header regardless of whether you put {{anchor|External links}} in the header). =={{anchor|External Links}} External links== is an OK usage, however, because the section header is different from the anchor. However, when the anchor and the section header are the same, the anchor is unnecessary—although there isn't a policy explicitly forbidding it, it also doesn't do anything helpful, and is akin to adding a bunch of   characters between every word. epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List defined references is one style. Template:R is a different style. They should not be mixed, since that would create inconsistency in reference styles (see WP:CITEVAR), so please don't add wording that encourages mixing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is the article's talk page, Help talk:List-defined references.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tudor City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The International (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tudor City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gables (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Theatre Comique 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/New Theatre Comique 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. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vzeebjtf

Thank you for creating Rutgers Female College.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thank you! Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]