User talk:Altamel/Archive 1

Hello, Altamel. You have new messages at Waggers's talk page.
Message added 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WaggersTALK 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, oh my. It's been 7 years and I didn't even remember I had anything to do with that article until you mentioned it... :) I have no idea where did I take that list from.

Anyway, it seems both the higher and lower figures are well-established. Even the Polish wiki article about the battle mentions both, without explaining the differences (4000 in the infobox, 2440 in the relevant sub-section). I guess the problem might be with the fact that at times the untrained peasants are added twice.

As to Polish sources:

• Kościuszko himself in his contemporary "Report to the Nation of the Victory of Racławice" doesn't cite any numbers, instead using general terms like "with half a regiment" or "the better part of a battalion".
• Jan Slaski (one of Kościuszko's subordinates, creator of the scythemen formations) also prepared a report after the battle. He does not mention the overall number of Polish forces, but mentions the following: "The Commander himself, with his sabre drawn and 320 of our peasants, started an attack. The rest of them, 1600, stood back in reserve. The assault was lucky, as following the first salvo only 16 of our peasants were killed and the rest [reached the enemy lines] shouting angrily >>Maciek! Szymek! Forward!<<. They took 3 12-pound cannons and then the peasants in full force, together with Wodzicki's battalion, charged on the Muscovites, the battalion with their bayonettes and the peasants using the scythes. They filled a wide and long ditch running along the forest with Muscovite bodies and took 8 further cannons, 5 large and 3 smaller. The peasants did not understand the words "I surrender", they butchered up [anyone who stood in their way] and then pillaged the bodies" - H. Mościcki ed., "Pisma Tadeusza Kościuszki", p. 117 (Annex)
• Konstanty Górski (himself a retired Russian colonel!) published the first monograph of the battle in 1884 in Cracow, later reprinted in 1918 in Warsaw. He cites the following numbers for the Polish side: 1989 regular infantry, 1850 cavalry, 1920 scythemen and 14 cannons (the Russian figures being: 1775 infantry, 1000 cavalry, 12 cannons) - as cited in: Bartłomiej Szyndler, "Racławice 1794", pp. 5-6
• Gen. Zajączek in his memoirs cites Kościuszko as: "5 infantry battalions and 22 cavalry squadrons, that is 3000 bayonettes and 1200 sabres altogether). Further down he mentions that Kościuszko also had 300 peasants armed with scythes. His numbers were often repeated in later works, particularly in late 19th and early 20th century. As cited in: Szyndler, op.cit, pp. 9, 28-29
• Adam Skałkowski (highly critical of both Kościuszko and the scythemen) cites in his "Polska, jej dzieje i kultura" (1927) vol II, p. 346 that Kościuszko had altogether ca. 6000 men vs. 2000 Russians, without going into too much detail
• Tadeusz Rawski "Racławice" in: "Powstanie kościuszkowskie 1974; dzieje militarne", Warsaw: 1994, p. 178 cites Kościuszko's forces as follows: "5.5 battalion of (regular) infantry, 20 squadrons of cavalry and a single artillery company of 12 guns, that is 3500 regular soldiers and several hundred peasant recruits".
• Johann Jakob Pistor in his Mémoires sur la révolution de la Pologne, trouvés a Berlin mentions that Kościuszko might have had between 5 and 6 thousand regular soldiers and several thousand peasants. as cited in: Szyndler, op.cit, p. 37
• Gen. Franciszek Paszkowski, the first biographer of Kościuszko and his aide during the battle: 2000 regular infantry, 2000 scythemen (he does not mention the battalions of Czapski and Wodzicki though) vs. 6 thousand Russians and 20 cannons. Szyndler, op.cit, p. 43

Hope that helps. //Halibutt 01:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Altamel. I'm still not entirely sure the project meets the GNG guidelines (we still don't know what will come of it, it might just turn out into another circus). But the members are notables, and I don't mind giving them the benefit of doubt. Good luck with saving it! And yes, I think moving it to "The Day After Project" might be a good idea. Yazan (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Altamel. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankings for the welcome, friend!

I know I don't edit much in terms of content, but I use Wikipedia enough for me to feel obligated to earn my keep and contribute in some way. When applicable, I just edit any of the syntax I come across in articles and whatnot.

Thanks again for the warm welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackofhats (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laurie Island may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Name Details: Laurie Island (Gazetteer of the British Antarctic Territory| work = | publisher = Australian Antarctic Data Centre|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laurie Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Powell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited the article Classical Music Discoveries I wanted to let you know that a discussion is taking place as to whether the article 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/Classical Music Discoveries until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

This message is a modified version of {{Template:afd-notice}} that I decided to use to notify people who are editors, but not the article creator. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laurie Island, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1904, Laurie Island became the site of the first post office built in the Antarctic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laurie Island. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to flesh out some river stubs and clean up some sources still, but it's still nice to be appreciated. Have a good day! — LlywelynII 03:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting my error at WP:AFT5! —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thanks for clarifying the opt-in procedure. Altamel (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Altamel. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Co-operative Bank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Flowers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had received a message from you stating that I had removed something from the Delhi Metro article, whereas I hadn't. I had added information to the article and had also given the reason in summary. Here is the link to the Article History. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi_Metro&action=history (Nipun Nayar 18:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

Hi, Nipun Nayar, and thanks for the info you added to the article. However, if you look at the edit you performed here, [1], you'll see you removed everything after the funding section. Altamel (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! It wasn't intentional. I think it happened because my computer hung in the middle of editing the article and then I must have saved it without checking. Thank you for notifying! (Nipun Nayar 18:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

No problem. Just be careful in the future, and happy editing! Altamel (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilias Panagiotaros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your numerous fixes and copyediting fixes. Gnomish edits like that are very much needed! Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thaddeus Hyatt, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thaddeus Hyatt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 10:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:08, Sunday, September 14, 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Altamel. You have new messages at 331dot's talk page.
Message added 02:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

331dot (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing my edits! you clearly know nothing about the Wars of the Roses. This is oppression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.232.15 (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why did u delete spider georg why u gotta be like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlyaperson (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Secretlyaperson. Your article was tagged for deletion because the first version was so short there was no way to identify who/what "spider georg" was. If I remember correctly, the first version read something along the lines of "is an outlier adn should not have been counted". Without knowing that that was a direct quote from an internet meme, no reader would have any idea what that meant, and indeed, that is why I flagged it for deletion under criteria A1(no context). Now, if the article had contained a better explanation, it might have survived speedy deletion, but then it would run into problems with the notability of the web meme itself, and that could still result in the article being deleted after further discussion. Please, feel free to keep editing and creating new articles! Just bear in mind that Wikipedia regards articles about internet memes with extra scrutiny. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read this. The editor in question has staunchly and steadfastly refused any sort of help. As you can see, I was, until today when the editor continued to attack other editors who were trying to help and continued to ignore all suggestions, willing to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. The editor's behavior today has erased any illusion that their editing can be redeemed. It's not a matter of a few simple fixes that will be picked up by new article patrollers. Good luck with your pooper scooper patrol. 32.218.33.251 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you've got something to say to me, say it on my talk page. It is quite inappropriate to direct comments to one editor on another editor's talk page. Please remove your out of place comments to me from MilkweedPods' talk page. 32.218.33.251 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, since no one has replied to that post I redacted the comment. Look, I try to AGF, okay? New users here can get frustrated really quickly, and it's not surprising that Wikipedia's rules seem draconian since Wikipedia has many, many more rules than one would expect for an Internet site. Now, to change the subject, check the talk page on John C. Pritzlaff. I've found some inaccuracies in the article, and perhaps you can give me your thoughts on it. Altamel (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand about the frustration level of new users; that's why I tried to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. As to the contradiction, nice catch! I've found the same sort of issues in other articles by this editor of playing a little too loose with the wording or leaping to conclusions. I've read through the sources and replied on the article's talk page. (Shouldn't the discussion be on Jr.'s talk page instead of on the founder's talk page, since the issue is in a statement in Jr.'s article?)32.218.33.251 (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. At first there were inaccuracies on both articles, some of them have been fixed by now. And you are very correct about the type of patrol I do, I tagged this article for deletion an hour ago. Altamel (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But ... but ... I was sure that was the title of a children's book ... 32.218.33.251 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Press Barnstar
		Congrats on your mention in the press, regarding the changes to the page of a Canadian MP. You came across as the good guy, and you proved to the world once again that Wikipedia is patrolled and vandalism is removed. Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, MelanieN! I did not expect a routine revert on vandal patrol to end up plastered over the Canadian newspapers...but such is politics. There were actually several other editors helping me keep things under control at Del Mastro's article; I wasn't the only one stopping the House of Commons IP. Hopefully the coverage deters the vandals from these tactics. In the meantime, we'll do our best to keep whitewash and smear edits from sticking. Altamel (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you may or may not be contacted by the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. See news story. --Natural R_X 07:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that they didn't. There's nothing that you, me, or any other editor can tell the MPs besides what is already recorded in the page history. What did you mean when you posted WP:DENY on the IP's page? Altamel (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely pointing out that he was being a bit of a troll and people shouldn't feed him. Totally agree too, and think it's completely stupid that they are thinking of an investigation. Someone vandalized an article. Said vandalism was reverted and said person was warned. Another day in Wikipedia. End of story, --Natural R_X 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

70.16.207.129 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC) I appreciate your time and comments, and I would have put it as you said it should go, honestly the only reason I edited that in there is because recently(yesterday I believe?) Brady mentioned on his podcast he does, Hello Internet, that his town was too big for there to be a notable persons section, and I wanted to edit him in there, if only briefly, so I could take a picture shot of it and add it to his reddit page for the podcast. I apologize if it caused any undue trouble, thanks for your understanding.[reply]

Replied on your talk page Altamel (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help/clean up. I'm not that great with reference formatting, but glad we were able to save article. StarM 02:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks to you too! Altamel (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo...the case is settled until the Afd notice right? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 00:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied Rangoon: I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you clarify? Altamel (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I meant that the article is in good shape for now, but we still need the Articles for deletion's notices. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 01:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you mean that you no longer think the article should be deleted, you can always withdraw the AfD nomination, and then the AfD tag can be removed from the article. See WP:WDAFD. Altamel (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I did. I going to withdraw it right now. Thanks for the help and guidance. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 01:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the authors, which to avoid WP:CANVASS, includes notifying everyone who put tags on them, is not required. If you think it's best, please be my guest, but you must notify every editor who worked on the article, including those who expressed concerns. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haywood, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War. 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) 08:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lookie at what i did muahaha lol jajaja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.1.42 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Altamel. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

why did you drop in a change this article Maureen Cormack it is a place holder for the US Embassy to use in Bosnia please leave an explanation on the article talk tab69.247.87.121 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, explanation at Talk:Maureen Cormack. Altamel (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Salus-Grady libel law, Altamel!

Wikipedia editor Strike Eagle just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks

To reply, leave a comment on Strike Eagle's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I appreciate you taking the time to help me out with my article Artur Pawlowski. I have made several changes in hopes that the article will seem less biased and more strictly factual. I have also messaged the reviewer to ask him to provide feedback. But I just wanted to take a minute and thank you for making Wikipedia a better experience than I had last time when I attempted to create an article. Can you give me peace of mind that the page I spent considerable time creating will not be deleted?

Thanks Bushost (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked questions of Eeekster, and he is not helping. It seems he is intentionally avoiding answering my questions, and therfor putting my page and work in jeopardy. Should I report him? Or, where do I go from here? You can see that I have directly asked him for help on his "talk" page and he seems to be refusing. Please help. This looks very bad on Wikipedia.

Bushost (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bushost: No, you should not report Eeekster; he was perfectly correct in marking the article as having promotional wording. You wrote an imperfect article, and it is up to you fix it if you want the tag to be removed, which is part of the normal editorial process. We are volunteers here, so nobody is obliged to fix the article, and everyone has real life commitments as well. The problems I pointed out were only a small portion of the promotional wording present in the article. Reread Artur Pawlowski carefully and imagine you are one of his most ardent detractors. What paragraphs, perspectives, and unsubstantiated claims in the article would you take offense to? Now rewrite the article and settle for something between that viewpoint and yours. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altamel Thank you for clarifying. I certainly do want to adhere to reasonable standards and will re-read the article and see what I can figure out. I can't, though, imagine that there is a way to avoid offending ardent detractors. The very nature of the person's role as an activist and someone who openly opposes the promotion of homosexual, abortion, divorce, etc, etc and one who promotes Biblical values and lifestyles is bound to offend a number of people. How can one report the facts and avoid offending, especially with thought police Nazis floating around our society? Could you please explain that? Personally, the page on Abortion is extremely offensive to me, it is clearly biased in favor of abortion. It's as pro-abortion as a piece could be while attempting to give the appearance of being a tiny bit gracious (a little hear and a little there) and yet there are no flags on it???? So, explain to me how this makes sense. I am personally offended at the bias of the page, yet the Abortion page is not flagged, and at the same time you suggest all bias and offense should be removed from Artur Pawlowski's page for the flags to be removed. I think this is a clear double standard which does not look well on a so called alternative to print encyclopedias.

As I said, I will reread it and see what I can do, but I am not the one offended by the page. The one offended should say what they are offended by. I suppose I could go around getting offended by all kinds of pages in wikipedia and flagging them also, but how would that help to promote the truthful facts of matters and people? Offense is bound to happen. Better direction on solving specific concerns would be helpful.

I understand where you and CFred are coming from on the edits to the Wiki references to Jonestown and Peoples Temple, and i apologize for any misunderstandings. I **assumed** when I got the list of pages from the Wiki bosses (=}) which listed all the pages with references to the SDSU website, that I was invited to make the clerical changes, even on the pages that were archived. As I say, this is my first -- and hopefully only -- extended editing on Wiki, because this reflects the only massive number of changes there will be on the Jonestown website. I will respect the Archival nature of the links I was provided, though.

Do you need a list of where I've been? I have it, and would be glad to provide it.

Remoore24 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Remoore24[reply]

@Remoore 24 No, that will not be necessary, every page you have edited has already been logged at Special:Contributions/Remoore24. Most of the work you've been doing has been highly useful, and we really should make Wiki editing customs clearer for new editors. I don't see any other places where your edits should be reversed; CFred has taken care of most of them. If you have any other questions in the course of your work, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Altamel, and thanks for your comment. I didn't know what "theologoumenon" means, there are about a dozen WP pages using the word, most of them w/o explanation - except for one which links to Wiktionary. My time is limited, sorry, I still think users are much better off with an explanation rather than with none. I added this link on all pages, redoing would be too much. All of WP is on the same level of trust, people know it, same with Wikt., so I don't think we should get too picky about Wiktionary :-) Feel free to redo it in a better way, I'm not possessive in any way, just please don't undo w/o replacement (I just had that done once today, and it's not so great). Actually at first I started creating "red links" in every article, maybe it's worth creating a page (NOT BY ME though, too busy), but found this solution far more convenient. Thank you and keep up the good work!Arminden (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)theologoumenonArminden (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

@Arminden: Well, part of the problem is that as Wikipedia editors, we shouldn't trust Wikipedia. In fact, the policy on reliable sources says citing Wikipedia articles is discouraged, and obviously that applies to wiki sites like Wiktionary as well. However, upon searching through further policy, it appears that linking directly to Wiktionary is fine, as you did on Mortal sin. I think the distinction is we want footnotes to signal external references readers can trust, and use internal links when navigating through the relatively un-reliable Wikimedia space. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for Traffic light delation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEA2:4B00:70A7:2D20:2446:443 (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junshan Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watershed. 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) 09:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]