ContentsFormatting/ ReferencesRE: (cur | prev) 20:57, 2 April 2016 SchroCat (talk | contribs) . . (18,331 bytes) (-10,980) . . (Reverted to revision 713238384 by SchroCat: Please read WP:BRD (when your edit is reverted, DISCUSS on the talk page, rather than edit war. This is not just about unsourced information: this is about the formatting of much of what has been added, w...) (undo | thank) Hi SchroCat, Sorry for the confusion here - as you can tell we are new to Wikipedia. Anyway, many thanks for your comments concerning the Royal Variety Performance page. The sections that we deleted were very in-accurate so we replaced them with accurate wording and correct information. For your information, we work officially for the Royal Variety Performance and the Royal Variety Charity in an official capacity, so the information that we substituted is 100% accurate. As I say, we are however, new to Wikipedia, so we now understand the importance of doing many references, so we have started again and included loads of references. We have deleted, for now, everything that we have added without references, so we hope this is now ok? Please let us know if not, as we want to make the page as informative and as accurate as possible. Can you please let me know what the formatting problems are? Would be very much appreciated. Looking forward to your advice. Many thanks --Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Getting All Fool's Day/April Fool's behind usWell, that was awkward ... I did see that you felt insulted by me, and normally I'd respond more quickly, but I didn't want to keep stoking the April Fool's discussion, because I expected it to be a disaster, and it was. Now that it's over ... I'm not going to apologize for insulting you because I didn't insult you, I carefully worded my comment as an attempt to understand and reflect what other people were saying. My thoughts and feelings really were the opposite ... I didn't want to attack you or your article, I wanted to protect it from the yearly circus on April Fool's. I hope we can be friends again. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well ... perhaps I can apologize for a lack of cleverness in my second comment, but I didn't mean anything by it, other than I couldn't think of a reply that would help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC) HarperHello Gavin, hope you're well. If you have the time and are interested I have William Harper up for FAC here. If you thought the UDI affair was something with Smith in charge, just try to imagine what might have happened if this chap had been PM of Rhodesia instead. Any thoughts you may have would be very much appreciated. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thanks Doc – much appreciated! I've enjoyed the contest, and an FL and an FA aren't too bad! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Indeed, though still 3 weeks left to get Roald Dahl himself up to GA status ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Even if it was just a 3kb prose expansion and cleanup that would count on the list. Each one doesn't have to be an FA haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC) TFL notificationHi SchroCat. As was previously discussed at the TFL submissions page, I've decided to choose Rudolph Valentino filmography as TFL for May 6, his birthday. The blurb is here, in case you want to tweak anything. Cheers, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
Texas
Please leave a message; I'll reply here.